beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) simultaneously with the delivery of the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 from the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of each building indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each building of this case”). The Defendants concluded each real estate lease agreement (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) between E and E, who is qualified as the Plaintiff’s agent, with respect to each building of this case as indicated below.
Defendant B agreed on April 4, 2010 on September 30, 2010 on April 30, 2010 on April 4, 2010 to April 4, 2010 from April 30, 2011 to September 30, 2011, to reduce the deposit amount from April 18, 201 to April 17, 2000 from April 18, 2013 to April 20, 2000 from April 17, 2014.
280,000 150,000 Objects 1607, 1907
B. The Defendants paid a security deposit to E prior to the date of entering into each of the instant lease agreements, and possessed and used each of the instant buildings until now.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 1 (if any, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion E entered into each of the instant lease agreements with the Defendants without the Plaintiff’s authorization or permission. As such, each of the instant lease agreements was by an act of unauthorized representation, and the Defendants did not have any justifiable reason to believe that E is entitled to enter into each of the instant lease agreements on behalf of the Plaintiff. Therefore, each of the instant lease agreements has no effect in relation to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the instant buildings to the Plaintiff.
B. The Defendants’ assertion E obtained a comprehensive certificate of authority from the Plaintiff on the lease of each of the instant buildings, and concluded each of the instant lease agreements with the Defendants lawfully. Even if not, the Plaintiff was to E on each of the instant buildings.