1. The Defendants are 6 million won to each Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from December 27, 2013 to November 18, 2014, and from the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is a licensed real estate agent, and Defendant Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) concluded a mutual aid agreement with Defendant B pursuant to the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act (hereinafter “instant Act”).

B. On November 12, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B as a broker of Defendant B, namely, the owner of Plaintiff D non-Dong 901 (hereinafter “instant real property”) with respect to the instant real property, by determining the lease deposit amount of KRW 120 million as to the instant real property, from November 30, 2012 to November 30, 2014, by setting the lease deposit period as a special agreement to cancel the mortgage on the instant real property on the remainder date (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) Therefore, the defendants' assertion that the plaintiff's name holder is a party to the instant lease agreement and that the plaintiff is a nominal lender is not accepted) at the time C had the plaintiff's resident registration certificate and seal.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million out of the lease deposit to Defendant E around that time.

C. At the end of December, 2012, the subsequent lease agreement C sought to change the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement into a half-month.

Accordingly, E around that time changed the lease deposit of this case from the above office to KRW 90 million, monthly rent to KRW 300,000,000, and excluding the contents to cancel the right to collateral security, E drafted a new lease contract (hereinafter “instant subsequent lease contract”).

At the same time, E returned 10 million won out of the already paid lease deposit to C.

However, in fact, the Plaintiff merely called C to E with the remainder of KRW 20 million, and did not delegate the conclusion of the instant follow-up lease agreement to E, and Defendant B did not have any other fact.