2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

A. On September 16, 1999, the Defendant acquired the ownership of No. 301 of the third floor of the D Building in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and No. 302 of the same building on September 22, 1999, and owned it until now.

B. E, as the husband of the Defendant, entered into a lease agreement with the lessee of each of the above real estate on behalf of the Defendant on October 2009 and around December 12, 2009 on behalf of the Defendant, and on the outer wall of the building, each of the above real estate has been maintained and managed by displaying a sign to lease each of the above real estate.

C. On March 1, 2013, a lease agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 48,00,000 for the instant real estate as the Defendant’s representative, and from March 1, 2013 to March 1, 2014 for the term of lease.

E, at the time of the preparation of the above lease contract, has the proxy, personal seal impression, and resident registration certificate, and presented them to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff paid 2,00,000 won to E the down payment set forth in the above lease agreement. On March 1, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the remainder of 46,000,000 won to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, and possessed and used the instant real estate until now.

E. On March 4, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the above lease agreement, and the said notification reached the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, witness F, testimony of E, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to see that E obtained the power of representation as to the lease of the real estate of this case from the defendant, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

B. Even if the Defendant did not grant E the right of representation concerning the lease of the instant real estate, as seen earlier, E, the husband of the Defendant, as the Defendant’s husband, also on behalf of the Defendant.