1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 37,500,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from January 1, 2016 to April 11, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and with respect to childcare facilities in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul apartment complex on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Defendant Company entered into a bid contract, enter into a lease contract for childcare facilities, or other necessary authorization and permission on behalf of the Plaintiff so that the Plaintiff may move into the above nursery facilities and operate the nursery facilities, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 230 million to the Defendant Company in return for the contract. However, the Plaintiff paid KRW 230 million to the Defendant Company by October 31, 2014.

B. On October 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the head of the above D Apartment Management Office and the head of the above D Apartment Management Office on the building for the above daycare facilities with a lease deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million, and prepared for the operation of the daycare facilities, such as conducting a test for the above daycare facilities. At the time, the Defendant Company was not yet organized by the council of occupants' representatives, and thus, the Defendant Company would first be able to receive a successful bid for the operation of the daycare facilities through bidding after the formation of the council of occupants' representatives.

C. However, as the council of occupants' representatives decides not to enter into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was unable to operate a child-care center in the above child-care center, the Defendant Company entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff on June 19, 2015 to allow the Plaintiff to obtain approval for the operation of the child-care center from the council of occupants' representatives until October 30 of the same year. However, if it is impracticable, the Defendant Company would pay the Plaintiff expenses incurred by the Plaintiff for the authorization procedure and pay the money that the Defendant Company received as an agency fee.

Since then, when the plaintiff's operation of child care centers became final and conclusive, the plaintiff was introduced by the defendant corporation around November 17, 2015, and the defendant C and the plaintiff.