1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B shall be KRW 94,500,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 1, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant D’s mutual aid contract 1) is a licensed real estate agent conducting real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “E Licensed Real Estate Agents.” 2) Defendant D’s Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) is a mutual aid contractor which enters into a mutual aid agreement between Defendant D and its member, with a mutual aid amount of KRW 100 million, and the period of mutual aid from December 15, 2012 to December 14, 2013. In the event Defendant D’s act of real estate brokerage causes property damage to the transaction party due to intention or negligence, the liability for such damage is borne.

B. The Plaintiff’s lease contract 1) On January 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, who was the F’s agent as a broker of Defendant D, and owned by F, the Nam-gu G apartment 102-dong 104 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

As to the lease deposit, 120,000,000 won and the lease term was set from February 25, 2013 to February 24, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) On January 9, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 90,000,000 to the bank account in the F’s name, and KRW 30,000,000 on January 17, 2013, and KRW 10,000 on June 5, 2013, and paid KRW 30,000,000 in cash to B on May 30, 2013.

B transferred all of the above KRW 60,000,000, which was transferred from the Plaintiff to the F’s account, to the B’s account.

3) On December 2013, the Plaintiff demanded B to terminate the instant lease agreement and obtained the consent from B. (C) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against F to seek the return of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement as the Daegu District Court 2014Kadan126275.

2. In the above lawsuit, F did not delegate the right to lease the apartment of this case to Defendant B, nor did it have received the lease deposit from the Plaintiff, and the lease contract of this case is an act of unauthorized representation.