1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) receives KRW 70,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 9, 2019, the Plaintiff purchased real estate in attached Form C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on January 30, 2019.

B. On January 18, 2019, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with D, the Plaintiff’s agent, stipulating that the instant real estate is leased KRW 70,000,000 as the lease deposit, and the term of lease from February 11, 2019 to February 10, 2020 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. On January 18, 2019, the Defendant sent KRW 6,900,000 to each “D (E) account,” and KRW 63,000,000 on February 11, 2019, to each of the several (Account NumberF) accounts under the name of E Co., Ltd.; and around February 11, 2019, the Defendant received the instant real estate from D and has resided until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 5 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Grounds for a principal lawsuit and a counterclaim;

A. The cause of the principal claim (Plaintiff’s assertion) of the instant lease agreement was concluded by D as a lessor, and the Plaintiff is not a party to the contract. Even if the Plaintiff is interpreted as a lessor of the instant lease agreement, the said lease agreement was concluded by D without the authority to represent the Plaintiff.

Therefore, since the Defendant without legitimate authority occupies and uses the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, it is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and pay 600,000 won per month for unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent.

B. The cause of counterclaim (Defendant’s assertion) is the Plaintiff, and D is the Plaintiff with the authority to conclude the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff, and even if there is no domestic authority, the Plaintiff ratified D’s act of unauthorized Representation or entered into D’s lease agreement by apparent representation beyond the authority.