A. The Defendant is a person entrusted with the name of Nonparty C, D, and E, F apartment Nos. 101 and 1605 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the lessor with the power of attorney held in the name of the Defendant and with respect to the instant apartment (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the lessor as the Defendant, with the lease deposit of KRW 145,00,000, and with the lease term of KRW 24 months (hereinafter “instant initial lease agreement”), and on March 26, 2014, with the lease deposit of KRW 160,000,000,000 and with the lease term of KRW 160,000 on May 9, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The part of the defendant's name of each lease contract was written by C.

C. On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant after the termination of the instant lease agreement upon the expiration of the term.

C On July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff wired KRW 16.5 million in the name of the Defendant to the return of the lease deposit of this case, but thereafter, the said money was unjust, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the return of the said money.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 7, 8, 10 evidence (including evidence with a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion;

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease contract of this case was terminated at the expiration of the period, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the deposit amounting to KRW 160 million.

B. Defendant’s assertion - Each of the above lease agreements was forged by C, and the Defendant did not receive the lease deposit, so there is no obligation to return the lease deposit of this case.

Even if the obligation to return the lease deposit is recognized to the Defendant, C must deduct the above amount, as C returned KRW 16.5 million.

3. The above facts based on the judgment, the power of attorney No. 1, and the seal imprint are not disputed, and thus the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been presumed to have been forged by C.