1. The Defendant’s decision on performance recommendation (No. 2014Gaon 35886) against the Plaintiff was based on the Suwon District Court.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:

The change in ownership of the instant real estate and the conclusion of a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1) The Plaintiff as a broker of C on March 3, 2014, the second floor No. 203 of the building E (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) On March 2014, C purchased a lease deposit and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase on March 17, 2014. 2) introduced that the Plaintiff is a lessee who entered into a lease agreement with D as to the instant real estate, and succeeded to the status of a lessor under the said lease agreement. As such, C solicited the Plaintiff to enter into a lease agreement on the remainder of the lease agreement under the same conditions as the Defendant. Accordingly, on March 20, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease deposit”) with the Defendant and entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the period from March 20, 2014 to July 17, 2014.

3) On June 12, 2014, upon the application of the Japanese Credit Union, which was a collective security right holder, the voluntary auction procedure was commenced with respect to the instant real estate, and G purchased the instant real estate from the said auction procedure on March 25, 2015 and completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the sale due to the voluntary auction on the same day. (B) Meanwhile, upon the commencement of the said auction procedure with respect to the instant real estate, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the refund of the deposit amount of KRW 20 million with the Suwon District Court, under the Suwon Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch of 2014Ga3586, Sept. 4, 2014.

2. Accordingly, the above court held on November 4, 2014 that the plaintiff was the defendant 2.