1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) simultaneously with the delivery of real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 6, 2015, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with the head of the management office of the Jeonnam-gun, D, and E F apartment located under the attached list (hereinafter “instant apartment”), which is the Plaintiff’s ownership, for the lease deposit amounting to KRW 27 million, the lease term period from November 11, 2015 to KRW 24 months (hereinafter “the lease contract of this case”), and paid the said lease deposit around that time.

B. From November 11, 2015, the Defendant occupied the instant apartment from November 201, and completed the registration of a housing lease on March 23, 2018, and removed the instant apartment from the apartment around July 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s principal claim filed a lawsuit against G with respect to the instant apartment, although there was a fact that the Plaintiff granted authority to the so-called monthly rent contract for the instant apartment, the instant lease contract is null and void since it did not confer the power to represent the pre-tax contract.

Therefore, since the defendant occupies the apartment of this case without any cause, it is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent with the ratio of KRW 400,000 per month from May 1, 2017 to the completion date of the above delivery.

B. The defendant's defense and counterclaim claim (1) The defendant asserted against the main claim of this lawsuit entered into the lease contract of this case with G with the authority of proxy for the conclusion of the lease contract of this case against the apartment of this case, and even if not, G was granted the authority of proxy for the conclusion of the lease contract of this case by the plaintiff and entered into the lease contract of this case beyond its authority. Since the defendant believed that G was authorized to do so and there is a justifiable reason to believe that it was reasonable, the lease contract of this case is valid in accordance with Article 126 of the Civil Code.