1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff leased a lease deposit amounting to KRW 130 million from March 29, 2014 to the deposit account (F) in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “the first contract”), and around that time, transferred the lease deposit amounting to KRW 130 million from March 29, 2014 to the deposit account (F) in the name of the Defendant.

B. Around March 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to renew the instant first contract with C, the Defendant’s agent, but to change the lease deposit amount to KRW 140 million (hereinafter “instant second contract”). At that time, the Plaintiff wired KRW 10 million to the said deposit account in the Defendant’s name.

C. The instant lease agreement was terminated on December 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded the instant first contract with C, a representative of the Defendant, and renewed the instant second contract, and paid a total of KRW 140 million as the lease deposit. As the instant lease contract was terminated, the Defendant is obliged to return KRW 140 million as the lease deposit.

C as the Defendant’s deceptive act, was entitled to conclude the instant 1 and 2 contracts on behalf of the Defendant, and even if not, there was a justifiable reason to believe that C has the authority to conclude the instant 2 contracts. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to act as an expression agent under Articles 125 and 126 of the Civil Act.

B. Although it is recognized that the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had the obligation to refund KRW 130 million to the Plaintiff, the instant secondary contract concluded with C is by the unauthorized Representation.