1. Basic facts

A. On February 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a business consignment agreement (hereinafter “instant business consignment agreement”) with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on the instant building as the owner of the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On June 21, 2017, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with C on the condition that the instant building be leased by setting the deposit amount of KRW 50 million and the period from June 23, 2017 to June 22, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. The Defendant paid deposit of KRW 50 million to C, and received the instant building from C.

At present, the instant lease contract was terminated.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) Since the Defendant occupied the instant building without the title to occupy it, it is necessary to deliver the said building to the Plaintiff (the cause of the principal lawsuit). The instant business consignment agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and C is a self-management-management-type housing lease contract that C subleases the housing from the Defendant to its own responsibility. Since C actually concluded a sublease contract with the Defendant, the obligation to return the deposit is entirely borne by C and the Plaintiff is not to be returned to the Plaintiff.

3) Even if the instant lease agreement constitutes a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is without the authority of C to conclude a lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff [if the content of the instant sales consignment agreement is interpreted to be that C determines the contractual terms without the Plaintiff’s agreement and the deposit, etc. may be received at the time of the Plaintiff, it would be unfairly unfavorable to the Plaintiff or difficult for the Plaintiff to expect the scope of delegation, etc., it would be unfair.