1. Defendant E and the Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association jointly share KRW 17,872,539 against Plaintiff A and its related thereto from July 3, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On February 17, 2010, Plaintiff A, a licensed real estate agent, set the lease deposit amount of KRW 508 out of the instant building from J, which is the co-owner of the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I building (Class 2 neighborhood living facilities with the first floor and the eighth floor above the ground; hereinafter “instant building”), and from K to March 5, 2012 from March 6, 2010 to the lease deposit amount of KRW 55 million, and from March 6, 2010 to March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff A completed the move-in report after paying the lease deposit. The date of move-in report was received on March 11, 2010.

(2) On April 24, 2011, Plaintiff B, a licensed real estate agent, leased KRW 307 out of the instant building from J, K, the co-owner of the instant building, KRW 53 million, and the term of lease from April 30, 201 to April 29, 2013. Plaintiff B completed the move-in report after paying the lease deposit, and obtained the fixed date on May 4, 201.

(3) On February 18, 2012, Plaintiff C, the broker of Defendant G, a licensed real estate agent, leased KRW 701 of the instant building from J, which is the co-owner of the instant building, and from K, the term of lease of KRW 45 million from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2014. Plaintiff C completed the move-in report after paying the lease deposit and completed the move-in report on March 2, 2012.

(4) On October 30, 2012, Plaintiff D, a licensed real estate agent, leased KRW 308 out of the instant building from J, K, the co-owner of the instant building, KRW 45 million, and the term of lease from November 3, 2012 to November 2, 2013, and completed the move-in report after paying the lease deposit, and obtained the fixed date on November 5, 2012.

B. (1) The present condition of the instant building and the explanation of licensed real estate agents, etc. were permitted as Class II neighborhood living facilities, but the instant building became a residential multi-family house for 53 households, following the change of use without permission, and the Plaintiffs were the maximum amount of debt in the instant building at the time of concluding a lease agreement.