1. The Defendant’s KRW 27,863,493 as well as 5% per annum from January 3, 2019 to November 12, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 30, 201, the Plaintiff, by means of a brokerage of the C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, leased D with a deposit deposit of KRW 120 million, the Busan Bupyeong-gu E apartment F (hereinafter “instant apartment”) which is one’s own ownership, to D as a broker of the C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.

(hereinafter referred to as “previous lease”). (b)

D around October 7, 2015, around G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), borrowed KRW 90 million from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant security loan”) (hereinafter “instant security loan”), and G, with the consent of the Plaintiff at the time, established a pledge against D’s previous security deposit claim to return the security deposit.

(18 million won per pledge). (c)

D. On June 3, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, for the lease deposit amounting to KRW 120 million and the lease deposit amounting to June 2, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On the same day, the Plaintiff received KRW 120 million from H on the same day, and delivered the instant apartment to H on June 4, 2016.

D Even if the Plaintiff received the previous lease deposit amount of KRW 120 million from the Plaintiff, G paid only KRW 10 million out of KRW 90 million and did not repay the remainder. On December 19, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 92,878,310 of the remainder of the principal and interest of the loan of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, each of the documents sent to the original district prosecutor's office of this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, asserted by the Plaintiff, received the instant security loan against lease on a deposit basis by the former lessee D.

Even if the former lease deposit is returned to D, the full amount of KRW 120 million is returned to D, and the Plaintiff’s wife was aware of the Plaintiff’s wife, and the Plaintiff remitted the above KRW 120 million to D account, but D does not pay the security loan of the lease deposit of this case.