1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From August 4, 1977, Nonparty D owned a cement block structure and an extract assessment house on the above land from Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) and a cement block structure, 16 square meters in 16th and 6thn and 6thn and 6thn and 6thn and 6thn and 6thn and 6th (5.07m2, October 26, 2012, hereinafter “instant existing building”). Nonparty D remodeled the instant building into five studs without obtaining construction permission on March 4, 2009 (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. Nonparty D and ASEAN requested Defendant B, a licensed real estate agent, to rent the instant building without permission for the payment of the construction cost after completion of the said remodeling project. On April 7, 2010, the Plaintiff’s mother who represented the Plaintiff as to subparagraph 203 of the instant building, and G, who represented the Plaintiff, concluded a lease contract with the term of KRW 40,000,000 and the term of lease from April 11, 2010 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the full amount of the lease deposit and received the transfer of 203 units of the instant building on April 29, 2010, and began to reside in the said building after receiving the move-in report and the fixed date.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease contract, the instant building and the existing building were completed on January 23, 2007 with the maximum debt amount of 135,000,000,000, and the registration of establishment of a mortgage in the name of E, and the extended building had only a copy of the register of the existing building in the state of not being registered without permission. Of the nine studs of the instant building, eight studs of the instant building had already been concluded. However, the Defendant B merely explained the existence of the said mortgage to the Plaintiff while arranging the instant lease contract, and matters concerning the legal relationship of the right of lease, such as the number, amount of security deposit, priority order, etc. of other tenants located in the instant building.