Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff’s KRW 24,00,000 against the Defendant and its related thereto from January 6, 2020 to February 18, 2021.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases of dismissal or addition as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The part that is dismissed or added is all referred to as “C” as “the Intervenor assisting the Defendant.”

3 Myeon 4 shares "total of KRW 11 households, total of KRW 500 million" as "total of KRW 11 households, total of KRW 500 million, and KRW 500 million notified and confirmed by the lessor."

5. The following shall be added after 10 Myeon 10:

Inasmuch as the Defendant did not have access to the information on the fixed date for each individual household and the deposit money for lease, the Defendant’s Intervenor asserts that the Defendant’s Intervenor, as confirmed by the lessor D, was performing all the statutory obligations by explaining the total amount of the deposit money for the instant multi-family house to the Plaintiff.

According to Article 3-6(3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Articles 3-6(5) and 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a certain interested person, such as a lessor, lessee, or owner of the relevant house, and a party to a lease contract may request the agency granting the fixed date to provide information, such as the date on which the fixed date of lease of the relevant house is set, rent, deposit, etc., but a certified intermediary does not constitute an interested person entitled to request the provision

According to the evidence mentioned above and Eul evidence evidence No. 4, D presented a lease agreement concluded with other individual households lessees of the instant multi-family house with the Defendant’s assistant intervenor or did not notify the details related to the right of preferential repayment, such as deposit and fixed date for each individual household, and it was found that the total amount of deposit was less than the actual amount. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor explained the contents notified by D to the Plaintiff and stated in the confirmation statement of the object of brokerage.

However, this paragraph is applicable.