1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On February 27, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that a lease contract was concluded between C and C representing the Defendant and Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-gu D D's shop with a deposit of KRW 100 million and monthly KRW 2.2 million.

Afterward, C and C representing the Defendant agreed to increase the deposit amount of KRW 10 million and reduce the monthly rent of KRW 100,000,000, and remitted deposit amount of KRW 10,000 to the Defendant’s account on March 15, 2013.

Since the above lease contract has expired, the defendant shall return the increased deposit amount of KRW 10 million as the lessor.

If the increased deposit amount of KRW 10 million is acquired by defrauded, the defendant is obligated to compensate for damages equivalent to the increased deposit amount as a user of C, because he/she delegated his/her mother to C for all management duties, such as lease of the said D building.

2. On February 27, 2013, the fact that C, upon receipt of the power of representation from the Defendant, entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on or around February 27, 2013, does not conflict between the parties, and even if considering the respective descriptions of the evidence A (including each number), C was authorized to act on behalf of the Defendant regarding the increase of KRW 10 million deposit.

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant comprehensively delegated the management of the above D building to C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the increase in the deposit claimed by the Plaintiff was established, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was the employer who directs and supervises C.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.