1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays KRW 35,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an owner of a multi-household house (D) with the five-story above the ground of Ansan-si.

B. On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff drafted a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to E and D 504 (the real estate stated in the attached list; hereinafter “the instant studio”) with a deposit of KRW 35,000,000, and with a lease term of KRW 35,000,000 and from July 1, 2014 to 24 months (hereinafter “instant contract”).

E affixed the seal of the defendant in the above contract.

C. The Plaintiff was transferred the room of this case from E at the time of the above contract and is currently in possession until now.

Around September 2015, the defendant filed a complaint against E with the suspicion of occupational embezzlement.

Accordingly, in the Suwon District Court case of July 14, 2016, the defendant was sentenced to a punishment of two-year suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of occupational embezzlement for the following reasons: "E has been sentenced to a punishment of two-year suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of occupational embezzlement for the following reasons: "E has been engaged in the conclusion of a lease contract, the security deposit for lease, and the receipt of rent under delegation from the defendant under delegation of management duties by the defendant; and he has embezzled while receiving lease deposit from the lessee such as the plaintiff."

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, 8, and 13 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant delegated the Plaintiff E with the instant studio rental contract and the receipt of the lease deposit, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant contract with E, a lawful representative of the Defendant, and paid KRW 35,000,000 to E.

Even if not,

Even if there is a justifiable reason to believe that the plaintiff is entitled to lease the contract and receive the deposit for the room of this case to E.

Therefore, the contract of this case is valid against the defendant as an authorized representative or an expressive agent, and the defendant is at the expiration of the term of lease to the plaintiff.