1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the husband D on February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) 4 Dongs in the Maurel Building (hereinafter “the instant telecom”) located in the Maju-si, a co-ownership of C with the husband D.

3) As to the lease contract, the lease deposit amount is KRW 600 million (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

2) The Defendant arranged the instant lease agreement as a licensed real estate agent.

3) Before entering into the instant lease agreement, the Defendant: (a) entered C’s resident registration number in the lessor’s name column; (b) written D’s resident registration number in the lessor’s agent column; and (c) written the phrase “C or her husband’s name is a contract with C or her husband; and (c) written D’s name in the lessor’s name as the lessor’s agent upon entering into the lease agreement.

B. (1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of deposit against C and D, Daejeon District Court 2014Gahap104357, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of deposit. On January 22, 2015, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim against D on the ground that “D is a representative of C under the instant lease agreement, but it cannot be deemed that it is a party, and D cannot be deemed that it jointly guaranteed the obligation to return the lease deposit, and it cannot be deemed that it jointly guaranteed the obligation to return the lease deposit, or provided an overlapping assumption of obligation. 2) The Plaintiff and C appealed appealed. On November 25, 2015, the appellate court rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to pay KRW 383,096,470, and damages for delay on the Plaintiff’s appeal against D, but the lower court rendered a final judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on the same ground as the first instance judgment (Seoul High Court Decision 2015 or 2015, 2015).

3 The plaintiff is a compulsory execution based on the above final judgment.