1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the following judgments as to the claim based on an expression agency which was conjunctively added at the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept the claim as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion, even if the plaintiff did not have the authority to dispose of the apartment of this case on behalf of the defendant at the time when he remitted KRW 50,00,00 to the bank account under the name of the defendant at the time when he remitted the amount of KRW 50,000,00 to the bank account under the name of the defendant, since F was deemed to have disposed of the apartment of this case beyond its authority after being granted the basic power of attorney by the defendant, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that the plaintiff as the plaintiff has the authority to dispose of the apartment of this case

B. The defendant asserts that whether the plaintiff's assertion was a means of real-time attack and defense or not constitutes a means of real-time attack and defense, which was added in the trial, and thus, it cannot be permitted.

A court may, if it deems that a party intentionally or by gross negligence causes a delay in the conclusion of litigation by submitting the means of offence or defense late, reject it. However, it cannot be deemed that delay in the conclusion of litigation in a case where the continuation of the date of offence or defense is necessary and the deliberation of the means of offence or defense can be completed within the scope of the continuance date, or where the contents of the means of offence or defense are included in the scope of litigation materials which have already completed a trial, it cannot be deemed that delay in the conclusion of litigation. In such a case, the plaintiff cannot dismiss it by deeming it as the means of offence or defense (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu5509, Mar. 22, 1996). The plaintiff's arguments added in the first instance court in addition to the above allegations are partly included in the evidence already submitted,