A. The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on May 4, 2015 with respect to the members of Ansan-si Seoul Building D (hereinafter “instant subparagraph D”).

B. On July 6, 2017, the Plaintiff received a lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the lessor, lessee, Plaintiff, or lease term from July 13, 2017 to July 13, 2018 with respect to the instant subparagraph D from a licensed real estate agent assistant E, and signed on the tenant column, and signed the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million in the name of the down payment, to the account of the Licensed Real Estate Agent F that arranged the instant subparagraph D on the same day, and transferred the remainder of KRW 60 million to the Defendant’s bank account on July 11, 2017, and received the instant subparagraph D on July 13, 2017.

C. On February 20, 2019, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that he would terminate the instant lease agreement, and around that time, delivered the instant subparagraph D, and was returned KRW 10 million out of the lease deposit via the said F’s account on February 20, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for refund of deposit for lease

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease agreement was valid between E and the Plaintiff, who lawfully obtained the power of representation from the Defendant.

Even if there was no right of representation to enter into a lease agreement with E, at least there was a fundamental power of representation for the conclusion of a lease agreement or for the receipt of lease deposit or monthly rent. However, as long as the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with E, etc., which directly managed the instant subparagraph (D), the act of representation for the conclusion of the instant lease constitutes a reasonable ground to believe that the Plaintiff was competent, and thus, the Defendant is liable for the instant lease agreement pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Act.

However, since the lease contract of this case was terminated, the defendant remains to the plaintiff.