A. (1) On February 16, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) as the primary cause of the instant claim against Defendant B; and (b) from Defendant C, the Plaintiff, who was the representative of Defendant B, the conjunctive Defendant C, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the term “G subparagraph (G) out of the Daejeon Dong-gu F detached Housing; (b) the term of lease on February 25, 2017 to February 24, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the lease agreement was terminated after paying the full amount of the said lease deposit to the head of the passbook designated by Defendant C by February 25, 2017; and (d) the Plaintiff had the duty of returning not only the right to enter into the instant lease agreement on behalf of Defendant B, but also the duty of returning the lease deposit to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 502 of the Civil Act.

(2) However, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B granted a certain basic power of representation to Defendant C in the instant lease agreement. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had a reasonable ground to believe that the Plaintiff had a right of representation to enter into the instant lease agreement on behalf of Defendant C at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement on behalf of Defendant C. Thus, the primary argument that the Plaintiff was friendly against Defendant B cannot be accepted.

B. The Plaintiff’s determination on the conjunctive claim is based on the instant conjunctive claim against the Defendant B. After entering into the instant lease agreement, the Defendant B entered into the lease agreement, and the lease deposit from the Defendant C without any legal ground is five million won.