1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 10, 2013 to December 18, 2013, and the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company primarily responsible for credit business, etc. and the Defendant is a person who runs the authorized brokerage business in the name of “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B Building.

B. The Plaintiff loaned 100 million won to D around December 5, 2012, and received a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) stating the deposit deposit amount of KRW 240 million equivalent to the Seongbuk-gu Seoul F apartment 102 Dong 903 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on D’s (i.e., September 28, 2012; (ii) the period from October 26, 2012 to October 25, 2014) as security.

C. However, the fact that D does not enter into a lease agreement with E, despite the absence of the foregoing content, D heard that it would cause the loan as security from G, and notified G of its resident registration number and address.

On the other hand, H introduced the defendant at the request of G to introduce the person who will prepare the lease contract from G, and around December 3, 2012, the defendant received the identity card, seal, etc. of D and E, and then newly prepared the above contents of the lease contract and the confirmation description, etc. of the object of brokerage at H's request, and then sent D with the defendant's signature and seal.

Since then D did not repay the principal and interest of the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 8, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), witness D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant committed a tort in violation of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”) despite the fact that the Defendant did not mediate the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, and thereby, made the Plaintiff to do so.