The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) delegated the instant lawsuit to the law firm by entrusting the Plaintiff with the fact that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) entered into a lease agreement on Nov. 25, 2010 with D at will; (b) the lease agreement on Oct. 28, 2009, which was concluded on Oct. 28, 2009 by F, is a sub-lease agreement that D was concluded as a contracting party; (c) it is not effective against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”); and (d) it is not possible for D to conceal the above fact and file the instant lawsuit in the name of the Plaintiff to receive the instant wedding from the Defendants; and (d) delegated the instant lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff, the lower court constituted a judicial confession on the wind that the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants and the Defendants were entering into a lease agreement on the instant wedding; and (d) it was found late due to the revocation of the confession.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or of misapprehending the legal principles as to the cancellation of a confession.

2. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below as to the ground of appeal No. 4 in light of the records, it is just to determine that the evidence submitted by the court below alone was sufficient to recognize that D had a legitimate ground to believe that D had the authority to manage the instant wedding hall and that D had the authority to conclude a lease contract on behalf of the plaintiff, and that there is no logical and empirical experience, as alleged in the ground of appeal.