1. The date of April 1, 2014 between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 1, 2014, the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s wife, concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff to purchase each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) from the Plaintiff in the purchase price of KRW 550,00,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”), and remitted KRW 50,000,000 to the account in the name of C on the day.

B. On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “the instant contract was concluded irrespective of the Plaintiff’s intent,” and the said certificate reaches the Defendant around that time.

C. The Plaintiff intended to return the down payment of KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant, but the Defendant rejected it, and deposited KRW 50,000,000 as the principal deposit at the Daegu District Court Seo-gu District Court Decision 657, Apr. 15, 2014, holding the Defendant as the principal deposit at KRW 657.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 2-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since C’s assertion as the cause of the Plaintiff’s principal claim sold the instant real estate to the Defendant without the authority to sell the instant real estate on behalf of the Plaintiff, the instant sales contract is null and void by C’s act of unauthorized Representation.

B. The Defendant’s defense as to the principal lawsuit and assertion as to the counterclaim 1) The Plaintiff granted the Plaintiff the right of representation as to the sale of the instant real estate to the wife C, and thus the instant contract is valid. 2) Even if C did not grant the right of representation as to the conclusion of the sales contract, the act of representation by C constitutes an expression agent beyond the authority of representation as to the right of representation as a basic right of representation.

3) Since the Plaintiff ratified C’s act of unauthorized Representation, the instant contract is valid. Accordingly, the Plaintiff unilaterally rescinded the instant contract lawfully concluded on April 7, 2014, and the Plaintiff is the Defendant.