1. Defendant C: (a) on December 2018, 201, the District Court of Suyang-ju Branch of the District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2015, Defendant C, Eins, showed the symptoms of dementia, which was diagnosed by the hospital on June 7, 2018, as “the dementia in Mazz’s disease.”

B. On December 13, 2018, Defendant C’s son, on behalf of Defendant C, sold real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by Defendant C (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the Plaintiff at KRW 100 million and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant trade”). C.

Of the instant purchase price, KRW 20 million was decided to substitute for the acceptance of the obligation to return deposit to the existing lessee, and the Plaintiff transferred the remainder of KRW 80 million to Defendant C’s account on the same day.

Defendant B withdrawn all the above money on the same day and delivered KRW 70 million among them to Defendant C’s partner and the Plaintiff’s mother to F.

E. On February 5, 2019, Defendant B drafted an explanatory note with the following content to the Plaintiff.

Defendant B received a written confirmation from G and H that Defendant C does not raise any objection to the use of the instant purchase price, which is another son of Defendant C, and provided the Plaintiff by February 13, 2019. If Defendant B is unable to comply with this, he/she shall immediately return to his/her original state before the instant purchase and sale contract is transferred, and shall compensate the Plaintiff for all the expenses incurred and related damages incurred by the Plaintiff.

F. However, Defendant B failed to obtain the G’s certificate until the above date.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. We examine the validity of the instant sales - Whether Defendant B’s agent was lawful, and whether Defendant B had legitimate authority to conclude the instant sales contract on behalf of Defendant C.

The fact that Defendant B had the Defendant C’s identification card and seal imprint at the time of the instant trade does not conflict between the parties, but at the same time, evidence and evidence as mentioned above.