1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the annex;

(b) from September 1, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 14, 2003, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed registration of ownership preservation with respect to the multi-family house including the instant heading 304 (hereinafter “the instant multi-family house”).

There are 7 households in each of the 2nd and third floors, and 2 households in each of the 4th and fourth floors.

B. On February 23, 2015, the Defendant: (a) filed a move-in report under the instant subparagraph 304; and (b) occupied and used the instant subparagraph 304 from that time.

C. On December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement setting forth KRW 280,000 in monthly rent for the instant multi-family house 203, and on January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement setting forth KRW 280,000 in monthly rent for the instant multi-family house 207.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A1, Evidence A, Evidence A4-1, Evidence A4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion (1) The Defendant, without authority, is obligated to deliver the instant 304 units to the Plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from February 23, 2015 to the date of delivery, since it occupies the instant 304 units owned by the Plaintiff from February 23, 2015.

The plaintiff did not have the power of representation to conclude the lease contract of this case with respect to C or D, and there is no justifiable reason in the expression representation claimed by the defendant.

(2) Since the Defendant entered into a lease contract of this case between C or D with the Plaintiff’s power of attorney to enter into a lease contract of this case and paid KRW 25,000,000,000, the Defendant occupied the instant subparagraph 304, the Plaintiff must return the deposit amount of KRW 25,00,000 to the Defendant.

Even if the plaintiff did not have the power to represent the conclusion of the lease contract, it is true that the representative authority to conclude the lease contract was granted to the plaintiff, and the defendant has any justifiable reason to believe that the agent has the power to represent the conclusion of the lease contract, so the expression agent is established regarding the conclusion of the lease contract

B. (1) The Plaintiff is at the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office on January 13, 2015.