1.The remainder, excluding the request for delivery of a building, among those against a counterclaim of a judgment of the first instance, shall be as follows:

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the cases where a part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Part VI 5-6 of the judgment of the court of first instance stating that "O filed a complaint with the plaintiffs on the grounds that it entered into a lease agreement as referred to in the instant lease agreement with the plaintiffs" was followed as follows.

【O filed a complaint with the Plaintiffs on charges of forging Private Document, etc. on the ground that the Plaintiff entered into the lease agreement as referred to in the instant lease agreement. On November 2, 2017, Suwon District Court: (a) on the grounds that Q had not been entrusted with the authority of the Defendants to enter into a lease agreement with tenants on the instant building; (b) forged the lease agreement on the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); (c) exercised the lease agreement; (d) sentenced Q to eight years of imprisonment for criminal facts, etc. (the instant agreement was sentenced to the imposition of eight years of imprisonment for Q on the instant criminal facts, etc. (the instant agreement was included in the Pyeongtaek Housing Site), and Q appealed appealed against the said judgment. On the other hand, theO escaped from Korea to the Republic of Korea.

(b) No. 7 of the 6th trial decision of the first instance court stated that “No. 1, 4, and 7” portion of “No. 1, 4,” shall be written.

C. The part of the 6th judgment of the court of first instance, “The instant lease agreement was lawfully concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants,” which stated that “the instant lease agreement was lawfully concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.”

Even if it is assumed that the Defendants cannot be deemed to have granted the O all the power of representation regarding the lease of the instant building, theO was delegated by the Defendants to the management of the instant building, and the Plaintiffs are entitled to enter into the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Defendants.