1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows, except where the Defendant added the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance to the pertinent part, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that a certified broker who entered into the instant lease agreement on behalf of Nonparty D was granted the right to representation to enter into the instant lease agreement on behalf of Nonparty D and entered into the instant lease agreement with Nonparty E. As such, the instant lease agreement is valid in accordance with the express representation provision under Article 125 or 126 of the Civil Act.

B. On the basis of the judgment, the evidence presented by the Defendant alone revealed that D conferred the power to conclude the instant apartment lease agreement to E. The Defendant indicated that D granted the power to execute the instant apartment lease agreement.

or the fact of granting a fundamental power of attorney to E is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, there was an indication of the granting of the power of representation or basic power of representation.

In light of the fact that the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement without obtaining direct confirmation from D, the owner of the instant apartment complex, even though it could have known that the instant lease agreement was not normally performed, in light of the process of concluding the instant lease agreement and the amount of the lease deposit and the payment method, etc., the Defendant cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds to believe that the Defendant had the right to conclude the instant lease agreement on behalf of D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' primary claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with this conclusion.