1. Defendant B pays to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant B and the defendant C.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant C may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including paper numbers) and Gap evidence Nos. 7.

The network D owns No. 2 of the ground floor of the building in Bupyeong-si E (hereinafter referred to as the “instant housing”).

On July 11, 2014, Defendant B (which is named as the agent of the network D under the contract) entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on July 11, 2014, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000 with respect to the instant housing, from July 19, 2014 to July 18, 2016, and the said lease agreement was concluded under the brokerage of Defendant C, a licensed real estate agent.

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000,000 to Defendant B, and occupied and used the instant house, and Defendant B did not refund KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff even after July 18, 2016, which was the expiration date of the lease contract.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B, a lessor, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 due to the expiration of the lease term.

However, the Plaintiff also sought a payment for delay of the above KRW 40,00,000 against Defendant B, but there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Plaintiff performed the obligation to return the leased object in a concurrent performance relationship with the obligation to return the leased deposit. Moreover, the Plaintiff appears to have been residing in the leased house in this case as of the date of pleading because it was not paid the deposit by Defendant B as of the date of pleading.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the obligation to return the lease deposit of Defendant B was delayed.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 regarding the claim against Defendant C is that Defendant C, a licensed real estate agent, entered into a lease agreement on the instant housing.