2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the victim who acquired the deposit to E by entering into a lease contract with respect to E, which is an agent with no authority, and multi-household house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter “instant building”) G (hereinafter “the instant building”), under the following conditions: (a) the ground for supporting the interest brokerage of the children of the certified brokerage office D, who runs the real estate brokerage business in the name of “C Authorized brokerage office”; and (b) the Defendant is the owner of the instant building that entered into an exclusive brokerage contract with the network D.

Specifically, H, the defendant and his spouse, share the above building.

B. 1) The Defendant merely delegated the right to a monthly rent rental agreement for the above multi-household housing to the network D and did not delegate the conclusion of the rent rental agreement.

However, E has the authority to conclude a lease contract on behalf of the Plaintiff with the delegation of all the rights to lease from the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff.

On November 13, 2016, the Defendant arbitrarily drafted a lease contract for the lease of the instant building in KRW 160,000,000 to the Plaintiff. On November 15, 2016, the Defendant acquired KRW 160,000,000 from the Plaintiff by obtaining the total deposit amount of KRW 160,000 from the Plaintiff (the Defendant’s seal affixed to the above lease contract) from the Plaintiff until November 15, 2016 (the Defendant’s seal affixed to the above lease contract was not the Defendant). Meanwhile, in order to conceal the said fraud, E, in the name of the Plaintiff, wired the monthly rent of KRW 1,20,00 in the name of the Plaintiff for the purpose of its original delegation, and then remitted it to the Defendant as a monthly rent under the said contract.

(c)

E was prosecuted for a crime that contains such deception and appealed with the sentence of imprisonment of three years with prison labor of 2018 High Court Decision 690, but the appeal was dismissed and the conviction became final and conclusive.

【Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence of Nos. 1 through 10, Eul evidence of No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (which include a number; hereinafter the same shall apply)