The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

purport, purport, and.

1. The plaintiff filed a claim for the return of the lease deposit, etc. in the first instance court to the principal lawsuit, and the defendant sought to perform the procedure for cancellation registration of the house lease registration as a counter-claim. The first instance court accepted the principal claim and dismissed the counter-claim claim.

As to this, the defendant only appealed against the main part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the defendant among the main claim.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal of the corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance or the defendant's assertion emphasizing at the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited including the abbreviation thereof

(However, the part of the counterclaim claim, which is not the scope of this Court’s trial). Defendant C Co-Defendant C Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co., Ltd.”) of Defendant C Co-Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Co., Ltd.”) of Defendant C Co-Defendant Co., Ltd., Ltd.,

3. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, even if the Defendant granted the right of representation to Co., Ltd., the Defendant granted only the right to enter into a lease agreement at the level of deposit and monthly rent as stipulated in the instant sales consignment agreement, the part exceeding the above scope of the instant contract or the basic power of attorney is not effective as a non-exclusive agent.

On the other hand, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned macroscopic evidence, i.e., ① the Defendant’s power of attorney drawn up to C and delegated all matters related to the lease without specifying the scope of the lease agreement or having any restrictions on its contents; ② the said power of attorney stated the “security deposit and monthly deposit account,” but the said power of attorney also stated the “deposit and monthly deposit account.