1. The defendant shall leave from the real estate stated in the attached list, and the plaintiff shall be from November 5, 2019 to the completion date of the above eviction.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of an officetel on November 24, 2016. The Defendant has resided in the said officetel from April 6, 2017. 2) If there is no deposit, the monthly rent of the said officetel is at least 300,000 won.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. The Defendant is obligated to leave the above officetel as long as he did not assert or prove the source of possessory right, and to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 300,000 per month from November 5, 2019 to the completion date of the above leave, as the Plaintiff seeks.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) On April 3, 2017, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with C, the Plaintiff’s agent, with KRW 45,00,000,00. 2) Even if there was no authority to represent the Plaintiff, the express representation under Article 125 or 126 of the Civil Act is established.

3) Therefore, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request until receiving KRW 45,00,000 for a deposit money for lease on a deposit basis. (B) Determination 1) The fact that the Defendant entered into a lease contract with C as the Plaintiff’s agent on April 3, 2017 on a deposit basis for lease on a deposit basis of KRW 45,00,000 for lease on a deposit basis with C, which is called as the Plaintiff’s agent, is recognized by the statement in B, or B,

However, in light of the statements in Gap evidence 4-1 through 18, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff granted the power of representation to Eul for the conclusion of the lease contract only with the statements in Eul evidence 2, 3, 5, and 6 and the testimony of witness D alone, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The defendant's assertion that he entered into a lease contract with the plaintiff's agent is without merit.

2) A person who has indicated to another person the power of representation to a third person is liable for any juristic act between the other person and the third person within the scope of his power of representation (main sentence of Article 125 of the Civil Act). In this case, the Plaintiff has the power of representation