1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 82,00,000 and annual interest thereon from May 1, 2017 to October 11, 2017; and

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2008, Defendant B completed the registration of the preservation of ownership of the Class II neighborhood living facilities and detached houses (1st floor 273.2 square meters, 271.5 square meters, 3rd floor 271.25 square meters, and 12.22 square meters, 12.22 square meters in a rooftop tower (hereinafter “multi-family house in this case”).

B. On July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, set the deposit amount of KRW 82 million with Defendant B regarding the instant multi-family house 201 as the brokerage of Defendant C, which was a licensed real estate agent.

C. Upon the consent of Defendant B, the Plaintiff extended the remainder payment date from August 30, 2013 to October 31, 2013. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff drafted a tax lease agreement retroactively, and obtained a fixed date on November 18, 2013.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff occupied at the end of August 2013, 201, prior to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the remainder.

On July 25, 2008, prior to the preparation of the lease contract of this case, the registration of creation of collateral security by the agricultural cooperatives was completed on July 25, 2008, the maximum debt amount of 858,000,000 and the subordinate agricultural cooperatives.

E. On July 8, 2016, an auction was initiated regarding the instant multi-family house, and the auction was awarded to Nonparty E on March 17, 2017.

F. On April 30, 2017, the Plaintiff, without receiving the deposit for lease from the auction case at all, left the place of sale on April 201.

G. On the other hand, on August 8, 2012, Defendant C concluded a license and guarantee insurance contract regarding “real estate broker’s business guarantee” with Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. between KRW 100 million and the insurance period from August 25, 2012 to August 24, 2013.

[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 10, Na 3, 8

2. Judgment on the party's assertion

A. (i) As to the judgment on Defendant B, the Defendant, whose claim was indicated, lost the ownership of the instant multi-family house, thereby leaving the lessor’s duty to perform, and the Plaintiff was removed from the instant multi-family house and the lease contract was terminated.

Therefore, the above defendant shall return the deposit for lease to the plaintiff.