1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 12, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”) with C, a deposit of KRW 25 million, and the lease agreement (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”) on February 24, 2014, which used the Defendant’s name, regarding 303 of the attached building (hereinafter “the instant building”), and transferred KRW 25 million to the Defendant’s account. The Plaintiff used the instant studio.

B. C was indicted under the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Da130, 542 (combined) and sentenced to three years of imprisonment, on the grounds of the following facts: (a) even though there was no authority to conclude a pre-sale contract for the instant studio, it was an offense of deceiving himself as the Defendant, thereby making and using the pre-sale contract under the name of the Defendant, and acquiring KRW 25 million from the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2, and Eul evidence 4

2. Judgment on the grounds of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Even if the lease contract of this case is null and void, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant ratified the lease contract of this case; (b) the Defendant was engaged in the business of the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant was responsible for the expression agency under Articles 125 and 126 of the Civil Act; and (d) the Defendant was an employee of the Defendant or performance assistant; and (e) the Plaintiff was not liable for the use of the lease contract of this case between the Plaintiff and C, and thus the Defendant acquired KRW 25 million, which was remitted by the Plaintiff without any legal reasons, must return it as unjust enrichment.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should pay 25 million won and damages for delay.

As to this, the defendant is the plaintiff and C, and the defendant does not have ratified the lease contract of this case, and is responsible for the expression agency.