1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for the modification of the reasoning of the judgment and adding “2. additional determination” to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, thereby citing it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Revision] The portion of the first instance court’s judgment is modified as “C” with 3 pages 10 and 11, respectively.

On the 3rd page of the first instance judgment, the 17th page “the plaintiff and C shall be divorced” shall be amended to “the plaintiff and C shall be divorced by the principal lawsuit.”

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Plaintiff without the Plaintiff’s delegation.

According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 11 and 15 (Evidence No. 15, No. 15, the same as evidence No. 9) and the whole arguments, the defendant signed a lease agreement with M on April 11, 2015 on the lease deposit amount of KRW 430 million (the contract deposit of KRW 36 million shall be KRW 320 million on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 324 million shall be paid on May 26, 2015, and the remainder of KRW 70 million shall be paid on May 28, 2015) with the plaintiff's agent and with the plaintiff's agent on April 11, 2015, and the certificate of personal seal impression and power of delegation shall be attached to the lessor's agent agreement and the remainder of the lease contract by the absence of the lessor's agent.

The following facts are stated: (a) pursuant to the above lease agreement, the lessee M remitted the sum of KRW 430 million to the Plaintiff’s bank account (N) on April 12, 2015; (b) KRW 36 million on May 23, 2015; (c) KRW 324 million on May 23, 2015; and (d) KRW 430 million on May 29, 2015; and (c) the Plaintiff used KRW 360 million on the return of the lease deposit to the former lessee D and kept the remainder of KRW 70 million on the remainder.

According to the above facts, on April 11, 2013, the above lease contract was concluded, and thus, the defendant, who was the mother of the plaintiff, was inevitable for the plaintiff to return home.