1. Defendant D shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 700,000,000.

2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B and Defendant D.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 6, 2009, the Plaintiff, a Korean national residing in the U.S., entered into a lease agreement with the F (E’s mother) on the apartment of Yongsan-gu Seoul and H (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the term of lease from March 23, 2009 to March 22, 201, setting the lease deposit amount as KRW 600 million. Around that time, the Plaintiff, a Korean national of the U.S. nationality, entered into the lease agreement on the apartment of Yongsan-gu Seoul and H (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and reported the instant apartment to the domestic residence.

B. On December 2, 2010, after the death of E, the Plaintiff extended the lease term to April 27, 2013, and renewed the lease contract with the F, the sole property heir of E, the only property heir, to which he was the Plaintiff, to whom the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million increased to the F.

C. On March 29, 2013, Defendant D and F prepared a performance note (hereinafter “instant performance note”) containing the content of Defendant D’s acquisition of the entire obligation related to the instant apartment, including the lease deposit to be returned to the Plaintiff on March 29, 2013 between Defendant D and F, and the content of Defendant B’s exemption from liability.

4. 10. With respect to the instant real estate, Defendant D’s name

3.7.Registration of ownership transfer has been completed on the ground of sale. D.

The Plaintiff expressed his intent not to renew the instant lease agreement to the Defendants one month prior to the expiration of the instant lease agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-1 through 3, 19 through 23, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion-related laws, a foreign nationality Korean substituted a resident registration with a domestic domicile report. As such, the Plaintiff, a foreign nationality Korean, obtained opposing power under Article 3(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act by closing the domestic domicile report on the apartment of this case along with India.

Accordingly, Defendant D is from Defendant B.