The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows. A.

Defendant D Association, and E jointly provide the Plaintiff A with KRW 75,00,000.

1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, and thus, it is identical to the description of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for modification and addition as follows. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

Then, the first instance judgment of 12 pages 12 of the first instance court stated that “(the Defendant E, F, and G knew the Plaintiffs that the lessor did not provide the data to the prior lessee.” However, it is reasonable to deem that the above Defendants failed to properly confirm the amount of the prior lease upon request of the lessee, or that the lessor believed the amount of the prior lease money and the amount of the prior lease money and the termination date, and delivered it to the Plaintiffs, etc., in light of the fact that the broker failed to submit the data requested by the prior lessee even though it was requested by the lessee, the lessee is obligated to enter the details of the lessee’s refusal to request the data on the lease deposit, the time and termination date, etc. of the lease.”

From 13 pages 13 to 15 pages 11 of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:

2) The following circumstances acknowledged based on the above legal principles are as follows: (i) at the time of entering into each lease agreement, the Plaintiffs appears to have sufficiently known that the leased object is a multi-family house which is not an aggregate building, and that there is a lessee who is not confirmed on the register of the structure and form thereof, and (ii) even if it is not specific or detailed, Defendant E, F, and G have priority over the Plaintiffs on each leased object, and the deposit is KRW 20 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 350,000,000.