1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. From November 22, 2002 to June 17, 2004, the Plaintiffs are “the instant bath in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government HI Co., Ltd.” between G and G, which is the representative of the networkF, and “H I Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter referred to as “the instant bath”).

For each part of the buildings, the lessor is not more than "F".

"The lease deposit is KRW 10 million for the plaintiff A, KRW 30 million for the plaintiff B, and KRW 30 million for the plaintiff D, and KRW 20 million for the plaintiff D."

)을 체결하였고, 임대차보증금은 G에게 지급하거나 이전 임차인에게 반환하는 방법으로 그 지급에 갈음하였다. 원고들은 그곳에서 매점, 이발소 등을 운영하였다. 나. 망인은 2009. 11. 3. 사망하였고, 망인의 자인 피고는 망인으로부터 이 사건 목욕탕 건물을 유증받고 2009. 11. 24. 위 건물에 관하여 자신 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다. 위 G은 피고의 망부(亡父)인 J의 혼인 외의 자이다. [인정사실 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1호증의 1, 2, 갑 제2호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion G is that the instant lease agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Deceased was valid, since the Plaintiffs and the Deceased were authorized to conclude a lease agreement and receive a deposit for the instant bathing building from the Deceased.

However, around June 2013, at the wind of the instant bath business, the Plaintiffs were unable to operate the relevant bath business at all times. However, the Plaintiffs, upon cancelling the instant lease agreement and claiming the return of each lease deposit stated in the purport of the claim, to the Defendant who succeeded to the rights and obligations of the deceased, as the heir of the lessor.

Even if G did not have the authority to conclude the instant lease contract on behalf of the Deceased, the Defendant has the responsibility to confirm or represent the act of unauthorized representation.