1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 30, 201 on the instant real estate due to sale and purchase as of June 24, 2010; however, it is recognized that the defendant occupied the instant real estate, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the plaintiff who is the owner.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant has a legitimate right to possess the real estate of this case for the following reasons.

① Since C, who was granted the authority to lease the instant real estate by the Plaintiff, leased the instant real estate to the Defendant on June 13, 2012, the Defendant is a legitimate lessee regarding the instant real estate.

② Even if the Plaintiff did not have the right to lease the instant real estate on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff indicated that C gave C the right to lease the instant real estate to the Defendant, and the Defendant believed C to have the right to conclude the instant real estate lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff, and there was a justifiable reason to believe this. Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable for the expressive agent under Article 125 of the Civil Act against the Defendant.

B. Nos. 2 and 3-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 3-2 [the authenticity of a document may be proved by comparison of the document, and the comparison of the document is a matter belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court, and where it is recognized that the document’s seal and the document’s seal are identical, the authenticity of the document may be recognized unless there are special circumstances. In this case, the court may, by means of an appraisal, determine the same as the document’s seal, by comparison with the document’s seal without any need to determine the same as the document’s seal (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da38240, Dec. 12, 1997); and Eul evidence No. 3-1 (the letter of delegation) of the evidence No. 3 (the letter of delegation).