1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. The Defendant is the owner of a multi-family house (hereinafter “multi-family house in this case”) that includes real estate in the attached list (hereinafter “instant 401”).

B. On March 2, 2015, C, on its behalf, referred the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s agent and the instant 401, concluded a lease agreement with the term of KRW 70,000,000 per month from March 10, 2015 to March 9, 2017, as the broker of F, of the representative of the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

C representing the Plaintiff issued KRW 1 million to D on the day of the lease agreement as a provisional contract deposit, and transferred KRW 6 million to the account in the name of G under the direction of D as the down payment on the same day, and paid KRW 63 million to the account in the name of G by remitting KRW 63 million to the account in the name of G on March 10, 2015 as the remainder payment.

(The term "special agreement" in the lease contract means that G is written as the denial of the defendant.

From March 10, 2015, the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant No. 401 until then.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff asserted that there was no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1-2, Eul evidence 5-2, and the purport of the whole argument as to the purport of the whole argument by the parties concerned, and the plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the defendant as to D, for which the right to represent the conclusion of the lease agreement was granted by the defendant, and paid 70 million won as security deposit, and possessed 401 of this case.

Even if D did not have the right of representation regarding the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, as the Plaintiff had justifiable grounds to believe that D had the right of representation, the expression agency pursuant to Article 126 of the Civil Code has been constituted. Even if so, the Defendant terminated the delegation contract to D, and even if so, it confirmed D’s act of unauthorized representation by issuing a notice to deposit it into other accounts.