1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 1, 2015 to July 8, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts of basic facts may be admitted, either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 11, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional numbers), together with the purport of the whole pleadings:

The plaintiff is a person who engages in credit business under the trade name of "D" in Ansan-gu, Ansan-gu, Seoul. The defendant is a licensed real estate agent who runs real estate brokerage business under the trade name of "F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office" in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and G is the owner of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan H Building No. 635 (hereinafter "the instant officetel"), and I is the friendship of G.

B. 1) On May 8, 2014, I conspired with J, which is the owner and lessor of the instant officetel as he/she is in the same kind of her mother and her mother, and she took place as if she were the owner and lessor of the instant officetel, and J made a false lease contract on the instant officetel as her lessee, and as she was acting as her lessee, she made a false lease contract on the instant officetel. 2) I and J agreed that I visited the F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office operated by the Defendant on May 8, 2014, and I agreed that “I would visit the F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office operated by her owner and lessor of the instant officetel, and I would request the Defendant to enter into a lease contract on June 20, 201 between J, who is the owner and lessee of the instant officetel, to obtain the claim for return of the deposit for lease as security.”

3. Accordingly, the Defendant: G and lessee, who are the genuine owner and lessor of the instant officetel, is the lessor of the instant officetel; G and lessee, who are the lessor of the instant officetel, without verifying whether the lease contract was actually concluded between G and J; and whether the lease deposit was actually received or not.