1. Defendant D shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from July 8, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 10, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C, the agent of Defendant D, setting the F apartment No. 112 and 205 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million and the lease period from April 30, 201 to April 30, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million out of the down payment under the instant lease agreement to Defendant C at the time of concluding a contract, and deposited the remainder down payment of KRW 9.7 million into Defendant D account on March 11, 201, and paid the remainder of the down payment of KRW 90 million to Defendant C as a check on April 14, 201.

C. On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff failed to receive a refund of the deposit for lease even after the lease term arrived, and did not receive a deposit for lease at all in the auction procedure for the instant apartment, and delivered the instant apartment to the buyer on July 7, 2014.

Meanwhile, the instant lease agreement was concluded as a broker by Defendant E, a licensed real estate agent of the G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, and the Defendant Association was a mutual aid business entity established to guarantee the broker’s liability for damages. On December 20, 2010, Defendant E and the mutual aid agreement was concluded between Defendant E and the period of mutual aid on December 21, 201 and December 20, 201.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 7, 22 through 24, Eul's 9, Nonghyup Bank of this court, response results of each order to submit financial transaction information to the National Bank, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) In fact, Defendant C, D, and E jointly did not intend or have the ability to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff upon the expiration of the instant lease agreement due to the excess of the obligation at the time of the instant lease agreement. However, Defendant C, and D did not notify at all of the risk of not collecting the lease deposit due to the excess of the re-determination of Defendant C and the mortgage established on the instant apartment.