beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly delivered buildings listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff and simultaneously delivered buildings to the Plaintiff 30,000.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendants, as co-owners (each co-ownership share 1/2) of the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on March 2, 2007, issued and delivered to D on March 2, 2007 the power of attorney and a certificate of personal seal impression (No. 4-1 and 2) stating that “I will delegate the authority on real estate as above. I will delegate the authority on real estate as above.”
B. On June 9, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D, claiming that the Defendants’ agent is the lease deposit amounting to KRW 30 million with respect to the instant building under the brokerage of Licensed Real Estate Agents E, and the term of lease from June 22, 2013 to June 21, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and paid the said lease deposit to D, and occupied the instant building.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number in the case of provisional evidence), each of the facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. (1) The Defendants granted the Plaintiff’s right to represent the conclusion of the lease agreement to D, and the instant lease agreement is valid between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
In addition, even if family D does not have the power of representation, the defendants assume the responsibility of representation under Articles 126 and 129 of the Civil Code.
Shed, the plaintiff terminated the lease contract of this case through the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case. Since the term of the lease contract of this case has expired, the defendants are jointly obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 30 million to the plaintiff.
B. (1) The Defendants merely delegated D with the management duties, such as the receipt of rent for the instant building, and there was no authority to conclude a lease contract. Therefore, the instant lease contract is deemed a non-exclusive agent.