1. Defendant B law firm: 5% per annum from November 30, 2016 to January 15, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 21, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-gi 152 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) to set the lease deposit amount of KRW 130 million from December 1, 2014 to November 30, 2016 to set the lease term for the second floor F. 32.9 square meters of multi-household housing (hereinafter “instant building”) on the second floor (hereinafter “instant building”).

Defendant C was appointed as the chief secretary of Defendant B Law Firm (hereinafter “Defendant Law Firm”), but was merely a person who had conducted the affairs of D in the past, and had been present at the time of entering into the instant contract upon D’s request. At that time, Defendant C had shown that the Plaintiff was the chief secretary of Defendant Law Firm, who was printed in the name of the chief secretary of Defendant Law Firm.

B. At the time of the instant contract, the Plaintiff wishes to be guaranteed the full status of return of the lease deposit for both the instant land and the instant building.

Therefore, in addition to the plaintiff's protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act, D has set the right to lease on a deposit basis in the name of the plaintiff on the housing of this case.

However, since the registration of creation of a mortgage over KRW 100 million in the name of G was completed, it was difficult to expect the Plaintiff to obtain preferential payment from the proceeds of sale of the instant land even if the Plaintiff had preferential payment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act, considering other creditors and lessees than G, etc.

Accordingly, Defendant C explained to the Plaintiff and D that if the Plaintiff had preferential right to payment on the land, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of G was cancelled and that the Plaintiff brought the priority on the land, and D could do so because it was delegated by G with the authority on the right to collateral security.

For this reason, the Plaintiff and D have the right to preferential reimbursement regarding all of the instant land and the instant building to Defendant C.