1. The defendants jointly receive the corresponding building from each plaintiff listed in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants, as co-owners (each co-ownership shares 1/2) of each building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the buildings of this case”) on March 2, 2007, issued to G a letter of delegation and a certificate of personal seal impression with regard to each of the buildings of this case, stating that “The contents of delegation: delegation: delegation to G on the preceding, monthly and preceding, settlement of entry, settlement of accounts, receipt of monthly rent and order, etc., of the above real estate; and that “I will delegate the authority regarding the real estate as above.”

B. The Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement between the above G and the Defendants’ agent, setting the lease term of two years, the lease deposit of 30,000,000 won, under the brokerage of H’s public office, and set the lease deposit of two years, and the lease deposit of each of the instant buildings (hereinafter “each of the instant lease agreements”). After paying the lease deposit to G, the Plaintiffs moved into each of the instant buildings.

On January 31, 2015, Plaintiff 1 A, Jung-gu I, 203, and Plaintiff 2 B, Jung-gu, Incheon on January 2, 2014, Plaintiff 3, Plaintiff 3, and Plaintiff 303, February 5, 2015, Plaintiff 4 D Incheon Jung-gu I, 502, and April 20, 2015.

However, G paid part of the lease deposit received from the Plaintiffs to the Defendants as a monthly rent deposit, and some of the remainder of the deposit was paid by G in lieu of monthly rent and acquired all the remaining money by fraud.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including virtual number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was that the Defendants granted G all the rights of representation regarding the lease of each of the instant buildings. As such, each of the instant lease agreements between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants was duly concluded.

The plaintiffs' trust to maintain each of the instant lease agreements was broken, which revealed the tort of G, and the plaintiffs were the defendants.