1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 20% per annum from October 25, 2014 to September 30, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 7, 2010, the Defendant is the owner of the building indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”). On May 7, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with C, who is qualified as the Defendant’s agent, with respect to the instant building, with a deposit deposit of KRW 25 million, monthly rent of KRW 180,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1800,000, and from May 8, 2010 to May 7, 2011.

B. On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) paid a security deposit to C; and (b) occupied and used the instant building upon delivery; (c) sent to the Defendant a certificate-proof mail to the effect that the instant lease contract will be terminated; and (d) removed from the instant building after completing the lease registration.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that C comprehensively conferred the right of representation on the lease of the instant building from the Defendant, and lawfully concluded the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff. Even if not, the Defendant granted C fundamental power to conclude the lease agreement on the instant building. The Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, has a justifiable reason to believe that C had a legitimate right of representation on the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, constitutes an expression agent under Article 126 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the lease contract of this case is valid against the defendant as an authorized representative act or an expression representative act.

However, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his intention to terminate the instant lease agreement on June 17, 2014, and the Defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff and the delay damages therefrom.

B. The Defendant’s assertion C concluded the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff without the Defendant’s authorization or consent. As such, the instant lease agreement was an act of unauthorized representation.