1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

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

3...

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). Meanwhile, the Defendant, around March 17, 2017, filed a move-in report on the instant real estate and possessed and used the instant real estate from around that time.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant has lawfully occupied and used the real estate in this case after concluding a lease agreement with C, which is delegated by the plaintiff with the authority to conclude the lease agreement, and even if not, the plaintiff bears the responsibility for expression representation under Articles 125, 126, and 129 of the Civil Act regarding the lease agreement on the real estate in this case.

Therefore, the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the instant real estate is in the simultaneous performance relationship with the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit.

B. Determination 1) According to the respective evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the Defendant agreed to lease the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff at KRW 150,00,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) between C and C claiming that it is the Plaintiff’s agent on March 14, 2017, the Defendant agreed to lease the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff at KRW 150,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

A) The fact that the Defendant entered into the instant lease contract is: (a) the Defendant remitted KRW 10,00,000 to C’s account; (b) around March 2, 2017; and (c) around 14,00,000 to KRW 138,00,000; and (c) around that time, the fact that the instant real estate was handed over and possessed and used the instant real estate. Furthermore, this paper examines whether C, who entered into the instant lease contract, was delegated the Plaintiff’s authority by the Plaintiff; or the Defendant

A. First, whether the Plaintiff delegated C the authority to conclude the instant lease agreement.