A. The Defendant Company is the executor of the Fresh Park Site Creation Project implemented in Changwon-si E, F, and Gwon (hereinafter “instant project”).

Japan 15 million won

1. The defendant leases to, on behalf of, the plaintiffs all of the above 4-3.

2. The commercial fund shall be paid with a deposit for lease or vicarious execution, and a security deposit shall be preferentially refunded when sold after the rent.

3. In the event of non-lease, the plaintiffs are to receive the refund.

The building shall be held by the defendant, and no penalty shall be paid to the defendant.

(hereinafter omitted)

B. On Aug. 8, 2006, H entered into a lease agency agreement (see A evidence 2 leasing agency agreement; hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Plaintiffs with respect to the commercial buildings that are scheduled to be newly constructed as the instant business under the name of the representative director of the Defendant Company, as follows. On the same day, H affixed the seal of “I” on the side of “(state) D representative director I” as stated in the instant agreement, and received KRW 15 million from the Plaintiffs on the same day.

C. The instant project did not proceed with any procedure from the date of the conclusion of the instant agreement until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion H concluded the instant agreement on behalf of the representative director of the defendant company on behalf of the defendant company and received the above security money. Since the project of this case does not proceed until now, the contract of this case is cancelled by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, the defendant is obligated to return the above security money to the plaintiffs

B. The Defendant’s assertion H, without the authority to act on behalf of the representative director I of the Defendant Company, arbitrarily inserted the I’s dead body and forged this case’s agreement, and the Defendant did not receive the above security money from the Plaintiffs. Thus, the Defendant did not have any duty to receive the Plaintiffs’ claim.