1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 24, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination on the claim against Defendant B

A. On March 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B with respect to the building Nos. 505 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

After the termination of the above lease contract, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 20 million out of the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million from Defendant B.

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, on March 24, 2013, Defendant C mediated the instant lease agreement at the time of concluding the instant lease agreement with Defendant B.

At the time when Defendant C mediates the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff trusted that “the relationship of rights to the instant real estate shall be clean.” The Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement by providing that “The right to the instant real estate shall be protected in the first order upon obtaining a fixed date,” and thereafter, it appears that the instant real estate was confirmed on May 10, 2012, and at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, Defendant B was not the owner of the said real estate at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement.

Therefore, Defendant C is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages amounting to KRW 20 million inasmuch as the Plaintiff incurred losses due to the false or fraudulent brokerage of the above real estate, which the Plaintiff had not been reimbursed KRW 30 million out of the above lease deposit.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C provided false or poor guidance on the legal relationship of the above real estate at the time of mediating the instant lease agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the whole arguments, matters of the lease agreement of this case are stated in the register of rights among the "1. broker's basic confirmation matters".