1. Defendant B pays to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000.

2. The plaintiff's claims against C and D are all dismissed.

3.

1. Basic facts

A. From October 2017, E operated an entertainment tavern under the trade name “I” by leasing the Gangnam-gu Seoul and three arms above ground G 1 and 2 stories (hereinafter “instant store”). Defendant B and C borrowed money from Defendant B and C, and used the name of the proprietor and lessee of the said entertainment tavern for the purpose of securing the said money.

B. On December 2017, E requested Defendant C to introduce and request sale and purchase of real estate or the introduction of on-the-counter deposit as well as the fact that it is difficult for Defendant C to run an entertainment drinking house business. Defendant C requested Defendant D, a licensed real estate agent, to act as a new lessee or sub-lessee of the instant store.

C. Around March 12, 2018, Defendant D introduced the instant store to the Plaintiff, and on March 19, 2018, the Plaintiff concluded a sublease contract with the effect that (i) J, the agent of Defendant B, and (ii) the Plaintiff set forth KRW 100,000,000,000,000 for sub-lease deposit, and (iii) KRW 35,000,000 for monthly rent (hereinafter “sub-lease contract”).

The sub-lease contract of this case determined that monthly rent shall be paid in advance by a special contract, and that it may require the delivery of a store once unpaid.

On March 19, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million on March 19, 2018, and KRW 35 million on March 26, 2018 to Defendant D as a brokerage commission. The Plaintiff paid KRW 6.5 million on March 20, 2018, KRW 6.5 million on March 26, 2018, and KRW 13 million on March 26, 2018.

The Plaintiff was handed over the instant store on March 26, 2018.

E. After the delivery of the instant store, E sent text messages to the Plaintiff on April 25, 2018 to the effect that the instant store will be delivered without paying monthly rent to the Plaintiff. On April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff text messages stating that “I would be forced to make it inevitable to do so on an extended date contrary to the instant sub-lease agreement. If you do not receive any reply, I would be deemed to waive the order.”

(f).