1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract between the Defendant and the Defendant under the name of C, the Plaintiff’s father, with respect to Class A-606, 608, Category B-418, 428, 624, and 631.

B. On April 3, 2015, among the instant housing, the Plaintiff concluded an additional sales contract with the Defendant for Category A 604 under the name of the Plaintiff, Category A 605 and 607 under the name of the Plaintiff, and Category D 704 under the name of the Plaintiff’s father.

C. On April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s office to change each sales contract concluded prior to the name of the Plaintiff, C, and D into the sales contract concluded with the Plaintiff, “Plaintiff A, Type A 604, Type A 605, 610, 702, 703, 712, and 713 (hereinafter “each of the instant units”) and April 3, 2015 (hereinafter “each of the instant sales contracts”).

The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 43,00,000 to the Defendant as the down payment for each of the instant sales contracts (unpaid KRW 50,960,00) and each of the instant units was sold to the third parties.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 1 through 6, and 7 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that there is no legitimate authority of attorney since the Plaintiff is not an employee of the Defendant E, and thus, the existence of the authority of attorney is subject to ex officio investigation by the court. According to the records, the Defendant can recognize the fact that the Plaintiff submitted an application for permission to act in a lawsuit accompanied by the Defendant’s certificate of employment on June 10, 2015, an application for permission to act in a lawsuit and a letter of delegation on January 23, 2015, and a written contract for work in a service on January 23, 2015. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, since there are special circumstances to deem

B. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of cancellation or cancellation (1) conclusion of the instant sales contract.