1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation in the litigation is the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 3, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the wife of D, and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the Plaintiff, who is a licensed real estate agent E and F, to lease the instant apartment as D, with the lease deposit of KRW 350,00,000,000; and (b) from February 9, 2018 to 24 months from February 9, 2018; (c) on condition that the lease deposit of KRW 35,00,000,000, which is the down payment of KRW 315,000,000, the remainder payment of KRW 315,00,00,000, at the time of the contract (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (d) at the time the Plaintiff’s Intervenor had the Plaintiff’s identification card and seal.

B. On December 29, 2017, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 5,000,00 for a provisional contract under the instant lease agreement, and KRW 30,000,000 for the remainder of the down payment to an account in the name of each D on January 3, 2018, and on February 9, 2018, delivered KRW 315,000,000 for the remainder of the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, and received the delivery of the instant apartment.

C. On March 15, 2018, the Defendant, a child of D, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the donation of the instant apartment on the ground of the gift, and D, on March 22, 2018, notified the Plaintiff on March 22, 2018 of the purport that the instant lease agreement is null and void, as the Plaintiff’s Intervenor did not confer the power to represent the lease of the instant apartment.

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 6, Gap's each statement of subparagraphs 9 and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the following purport, and sought confirmation that the right of lease under the instant lease exists against the Defendant who donated the instant apartment.

1) Since the Plaintiff’s Intervenor obtained the power of representation on the lease of the instant apartment from D, the instant lease agreement is valid. 2) Even if the Plaintiff’s Intervenor did not receive the power of representation from D, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor as the wife of D, Article 827 of the Civil Act.