1. The Defendant: KRW 38,791,001, and the Plaintiff’s 15% per annum from March 21, 2019 to May 31, 2019; and

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff, the lessor, the lessor, the lease deposit amount of KRW 190,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 36 months from February 27, 2015 to February 27, 2018, with respect to general restaurants of the first floor E (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 190,000,000 in total by remitting each of KRW 171,00,000, and KRW 19,000 to the account under the Defendant’s name on two occasions.

C. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of chonsegwon creation with respect to the instant building from February 27, 2015 to February 27, 2018, with the content that: (a) the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the deposit money for lease on a deposit basis, and the duration from February 27, 2015 to February 27, 2018; (b) Nonparty FF association (hereinafter “Nonindicted F”) completed the additional registration of the establishment of chonsegwon creation with respect to the said lease on a deposit basis on February 27, 2015.

On November 3, 2017, when February 27, 2018, which is the termination date of the above lease contract, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of the content of demanding the Defendant to terminate the lease relationship and return KRW 190,000,000,000.

E. Notwithstanding the above content notification, the Defendant did not pay the above lease deposit, and the Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of real estate rent for the instant building with the Jeonju District Court Gunsan Branch G, and Nonparty F, the mortgagee of chonsegwon, was distributed KRW 151,208,99 in the above auction procedure.

F. On January 9, 2019, the Plaintiff received a successful bid for the said building at the above auction procedure, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the “sale due to voluntary auction on January 9, 2019” on the same day.

[Grounds for recognition] A, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 asserted to the effect that they recognized the authenticity of Gap’s evidence No. 2 (the lease contract) was revoked. However, the said recognition is contrary to the truth and is erroneous.