1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000, and 6% per annum from February 28, 2014 to May 14, 2015.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6.

On February 18, 2014, Defendant D Limited Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) whose manager is Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) leased the second floor of the apartment house in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment house”) from the Plaintiff to KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 200,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000, and the sublease period from February 28, 2014 to February 27, 2016, and thereafter, received KRW 40,000,000 from the Plaintiff around that time.

B. However, around February 2014, F, the owner of the instant house, demanded the Plaintiff to leave the instant house, which is only the former lessee, because the Defendant Company was not a person having a right to lease on the instant house, but a lessee who was not a person having a right to lease on the instant house.

C. Accordingly, on October 10, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a sub-lease contract without notifying the Plaintiff under the circumstances where the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company had a duty to allow the Plaintiff to take over the instant house and take profits therefrom, and concluded the sub-lease contract without notifying the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff expressed his intent to cancel the sub-lease contract on the ground of deception, and the said declaration of intent reached the Defendant Company around that time.

On the other hand, Defendant B, who worked for the Defendant Company, agreed to refund the said sub-lease deposit to the Plaintiff around October 2014.

2. Regarding the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim for the return of the deposit for sub-lease, the Defendant Company concluded the sub-lease contract of this case without notifying the Plaintiff of the right to sublease the house of this case. Thus, the above sub-lease contract which was concluded by the Defendant Company's deception as above is legitimate by the Plaintiff's expression of intent to cancel the sub-lease contract of this case.