1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the judgment as to this case to the corresponding part of the second and the second and the second claims that the Defendants used, repeated or new in the trial, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 11th and 17th and 17th and 7th of the judgment of the first instance shall be referred to as "the date of pronouncement of this judgment" as "the date of pronouncement of the first instance judgment".

2. Additional determination as to Defendant B’s assertion

A. The summary of the Defendant B’s assertion was that Defendant B did not grant the right of representation to enter into the instant contract for the transfer of rights, and G, without any authority, entered into the instant contract for the transfer of rights in the name of Defendant B using Defendant B’s seal imprint design, etc.

Therefore, G cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim based on the premise that it concluded the instant contract as the representative of Defendant B.

B. Considering the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that G obtained from Defendant B the power of representation as to the transfer of the right of lease and the receipt of premium from the pharmacy part among the instant stores, and entered into the agreement on the transfer of the right of lease on behalf of the Plaintiff and the instant transfer of right on behalf of the Defendant B on behalf of the Plaintiff, in light of each of the statements in evidence Nos. 3, 5 through 12, 16, 20, and 21.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

Although G does not indicate that it is the agent of Defendant B in the instant contract, G, which is in a relationship with Defendant B, introduced itself to the Plaintiff as the husband of Defendant B, offered a lease contract on the instant store made in the name of Defendant B, and Defendant B also had the seal impression.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff was aware that he was transferred the right of lease from the Defendant B, the lessee of the instant store.