beta
Text
1. Defendant B pays to the Plaintiff KRW 110,000,000.
2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant B and the defendant C.
Reasons
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each of the following facts are identical to Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 6-1-6 (lease Contract) and Eul evidence 6 (Lease Contract), Eul evidence 1-1, and Eul evidence 1-6 (Lease Contract), and Eul evidence 6 (Lease Contract), and Eul evidence 6 are identical to the whole contents except that the plaintiff's agent is the tenant's agent.
The Plaintiff was granted a fixed date as of February 23, 201 by the K-Eup Office in the case of Pakistan with respect to No. 1-1.
each of the statements, witnesses D, E, F, G testimony, significant facts in this court and the overall purport of the pleading. A.
(1) On January 17, 201, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with Defendant C, the husband of his woman representing Defendant B, determined the lease deposit amount of KRW 110 million and KRW 150 million as the lease deposit between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, the first Plaintiff and the Defendant B, who was the husband of his woman, as the husband of his husband, at the time of Pakistan-si, as the Plaintiff determined the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000. As the Plaintiff, the lessee, was unable to obtain the lease deposit from the bank, the terms and conditions of the lease agreement were changed to “ KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 4,000,000,000,000.
In February 23, 2011, to February 22, 2013, a lease agreement was concluded to lease KRW 400,000,000 for monthly rent, from February 23, 2011 to February 22, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
B. At that time, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit to Defendant C by means of remitting the amount of KRW 110 million to Defendant C’s Agricultural Bank account (Account Number: I).
B. (i) On November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff called the Defendants on a telephone to the extent that the term of the lease agreement expires and the preparation of the sales contract is made. The Plaintiff’s phone calls to the Defendants until February 2013, 2013.