1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be instituted respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2, 2007, the Defendants, as co-owners (each share of 1/2) of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant building”), prepared and delivered to D on March 2, 2007 the power of attorney and a certificate of personal seal impression stating that “I delegate the above real estate to others: the contents of delegation: the preceding, monthly and preceding, settlement of entry and exit, monthly rent receipt and order. I delegate the authority on real estate as above. I delegate the above.”

B. On June 9, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement between D and D claiming that the Defendants’ agent is KRW 30 million with respect to the instant building and the lease agreement between June 22, 2013 and June 21, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 3 million on June 10, 2013, and KRW 23 million with the lease deposit, and received delivery of the instant building.

C. Since June 22, 2015, the instant lease agreement was renewed to increase the lease deposit to KRW 2 million. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1 million on June 22, 2015 and KRW 1 million on June 29, 2015 to D respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff Defendants granted the power to execute the lease agreement to D, and the instant lease agreement is valid between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

Even if D did not have obtained the power of representation, the Defendants assume the responsibility of representation under Articles 126 and 129 of the Civil Act.

The plaintiff terminated the lease contract of this case with the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, and since the term of the lease contract of this case expires, the defendants are jointly obligated to refund the deposit amount of KRW 30 million to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendants are only responsible for the management of the instant building to D.