A. On September 5, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement between D and D with the Defendant, who was delegated by the Defendant with the right to manage the building on the ground of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, which was owned by the Defendant, regarding KRW 302 of the said building (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On September 21, 201, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the lessor, the Defendant, the lease deposit amount of KRW 70,000,000, and the lease term as until September 21, 2012, and concluded again on March 19, 2013 as a lease agreement extending the lease term to February 28, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Plaintiff remitted to the financial account in the name of D KRW 50 million on September 20, 201, and KRW 20 million on December 7, 201 of the same year.

C. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on which the instant lease agreement expired.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) D is a person delegated by the Defendant with all authority concerning the management of the entire building, including the instant real estate, and is entitled to enter into a lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant. (2) Even if such authority does not exist, the Defendant is liable to return the lease deposit and the Defendant is liable to return the lease deposit. (3) The Defendant is a user of D’s tort.

3. Determination

A. As to the establishment of the right of representation, first of all, whether D had the power of representation to conclude the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant, the fact that the Defendant delegated D with the authority to receive monthly and monthly rent, is recognized by the Defendant himself. However, the fact and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that D was delegated with the authority to conclude the lease agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

B. Civil Act.