1. Defendant B andC shall jointly serve as the Plaintiff KRW 140,000,000, and as the case may be, on March 1, 2017.

Facts of recognition

Defendant B and C are married, and the Plaintiff is the subject of Defendant C.

On December 13, 2015, the Plaintiff and Defendant B and C entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to F apartment 106 dong 2504 (hereinafter “instant rental housing”) at Sju-si, which was scheduled to purchase by the said Defendants, from March 5, 2016 to March 5, 2018.

Defendant B and C purchased the instant rental housing on February 25, 2016 and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to one-half of each of them, and the Plaintiff moved into the instant rental housing on March 5, 2016.

On January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the lease registration with respect to the instant rental housing, and retired from the instant rental housing on January 12, 2017.

On December 8, 2016, Defendant B donated 1/2 shares among apartment buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by it to Defendant D, E (hereinafter “instant gift agreement”), Defendant D, and E completed the registration of ownership transfer as to 1/2 shares of each of the instant real estate on December 13, 2016.

(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings.

The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease agreement was terminated by agreement between the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C around December 2016.

Therefore, Defendant B and C should pay the lease deposit of KRW 140,000 and damages for delay to each Plaintiff.

In addition, Defendant B bears the obligation to return the deposit to the Plaintiff as such, and the instant real estate was donated to Defendant D and E with a much more small property than active property, which constitutes a fraudulent act.

Therefore, the gift contract of this case should be revoked, and accordingly, the transfer of ownership in Defendant D and E should be revoked.

The Defendants’ instant lease agreement was not agreed upon, and the lease term remains. As such, Defendant B.