2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to Defendant B with the lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 30,000 from March 30, 2017 to March 29, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) However, since Defendant B did not pay rent more than three times, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease contract by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint, Defendant B, the lessee, delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to enter into the instant lease contract between April 30, 2017 to March 29, 2019 (23 months) (i.e., KRW 1,000,000, 23 months x 23 months), which deducts KRW 20,000,000 from the lease deposit (i.e., KRW 23,00,000 - KRW 20,000 - KRW 20,000,000 from March 30, 2019 to KRW 10,000,000) and KRW 200,000 from March 30, 2019 to the completion date of the instant lease contract, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant B was without merit.

B. In the event that the other party asserts the authenticity of a private document, the person who submitted it must prove it (Article 357 of the Civil Procedure Act). In the case of the instant lease agreement (Evidence A2) where the Defendant B contests the authenticity of the document, it cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the lease agreement (Article 357 of the Civil Procedure Act). The remainder of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to recognize the fact that Defendant B entered into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion against the defendant B is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The plaintiff to indicate the claim is the service of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and the lease contract of this case.