A. Defendant B’s KRW 45,00,000 and interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from September 11, 2019 to the date of full payment.

A. Defendant C is a licensed real estate agent operating “D Licensed Real Estate Agent” and Defendant B is a brokerage assistant of the above licensed real estate agent office.

B. On February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the old-si F Building G (hereinafter “instant housing”) from E by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 36,000,000, and the lease term of February 3, 2014.

C. The above lease agreement was implicitly renewed, and on December 20, 2014, the ownership of the instant house was transferred to H.

On January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with H by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 45,000,000 with respect to the instant housing as a broker of Defendant B.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). E.

On the other hand, on January 13, 2015, the Plaintiff, upon Defendant B’s request, filed a move-in report with H on the said I ApartmentJ, which was owned by H, and thereafter filed a move-in report to the instant housing again on January 15, 2015, the following day after the instant lease contract was concluded.

However, on January 14, 2015, H created the right to collateral security, which is an association of the mortgagee, with the maximum debt amount of 390,000,000,000 won and the right to collateral security, on the instant house. Defendant A did not state any matters other than the ownership of the description verifying the object of brokerage of the instant lease agreement.

F. On October 30, 2017, a decision to commence compulsory auction was rendered on the instant housing, and the Plaintiff failed to receive the distribution of the lease deposit in the said auction procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: A’s judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act): The fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence A1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against the defendant B, the defendant B explained the relation of rights of the housing of this case so that the plaintiff, who is the lessee, can receive a refund of the deposit for lease in the brokerage of the lease contract of this case. However, the priority mortgage on the housing of this case shall be placed.