1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from February 1, 2013; and Defendant C with respect to the same.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, witness D's testimony, and the purport of the whole oral argument in relation to the fact inquiry about the President of the Gyeonggi-do Construction Corporation.

On July 26, 2006, E applied for an offer to lease one household of national housing (hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease”) which is the requirement of application for the lease on a five-year basis for a homeless household, and then, at the time of F’s recommendation to sell the instant lease, E also delivered documents necessary for the change of the lessee’s name of the instant lease to F, and on August 10, 2006, entered into a contract to lease the said apartment (hereinafter referred to as “the instant apartment”) out of the said national housing with the Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation upon application for the subscription for the instant lease.

B. After that, on August 1, 2006, D purchased the instant right to lease of KRW 19.5 million with the introduction of the Defendants, a real estate broker, and paid the purchase price to Defendant B, but did not receive any documents related to the instant right to lease, as well as did not hear the exact status of the instant apartment and the seller’s explanation.

However, around August 10, 2006, when the object of the right of lease of this case became final and conclusive as 401 dong 801, D heard from the Defendants that it is difficult for D to reside in the apartment site of this case due to the lack of the same ancillary facilities as the school in the vicinity of the apartment site of this case, and it was returned KRW 19.5 million from Defendant B, who decided not to purchase the right of lease of this case.

C. On August 10, 2006, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25 million separate from the down payment upon introduction by the Defendants, and purchased the right of lease of this case, and paid KRW 11760,000 to the Gyeonggi-do Urban Corporation on behalf of E, after purchasing the right of lease of this case.

However, the documents (Evidence A No. 1) that the Plaintiff received from the Defendants regarding the sale of the right of lease of this case are the seller, the buyer, the delegating, the mandatory, the subject of the sale, and the purchase price.