1. The part against Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

2. Defendant C is jointly and severally with Co-Defendant D of the first instance trial.

1. Basic facts

A. D leased the first floor and underground floor of a building located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H, and operated the Pitice Center and Saria.

B. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) were engaged in business, such as shop, bath, and stowing out part or stowing out from D.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 22,00,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 15,000,00 in each case, and KRW 15,00 in each case, and KRW 15,00 in each case, to D.

C. Around September 2, 2013, D entered into a contract for remodeling construction works with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

D Around that time, due to the shortage of funds to pay the construction cost, the Defendant Company transferred the right to operate the said Pice Center and Syna to the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company again agreed to refund its operating right when it fully collects the construction cost.

Defendant C is the managing director of the Defendant Company.

Around September 6, 2013, the Plaintiffs, Defendant C, and D drafted a letter stating that “The payment of 25% of the security deposit shall be made by Defendant C prior to the opening of the open, and the balance 75% shall be paid at the rate of 10% on the fifth day of each month from the net income except for the expenses for personnel expenses, management expenses, public charges, and taxes after the opening of the open, and operating expenses.” The Plaintiffs signed and sealed each letter (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant notes”).

E. The Plaintiffs, after reorganization of the office fixtures, removed from the above offices, and received money equivalent to 25% of the deposit from the account of the Defendant Company.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant B

A. 1 Plaintiff’s assertion of acceptance of the obligation to refund deposit has taken over the obligation to refund deposit against the Plaintiffs by D, and Defendant with its certificate.