1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 15, 2009, the Defendants entered into a delegation agreement with the Plaintiff, and entered into a delegation agreement with the Plaintiff, stating that the Plaintiff will delegate the Plaintiff the affairs of the first instance court’s agency to the Plaintiff, such as cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the South-North Koreans of the deceased D (Death August 2, 2009) who is the husband of the Defendant B (hereinafter “instant delegation agreement”).

According to Article 7 of the delegation contract of this case, when the Defendants won a prize on the delegated affairs, the amount equivalent to 10% of the value of economic benefits accrued therefrom shall be paid as compensation for performance.

(1) The Defendants asserted that the delegation contract of this case was signed in the name of Defendant B under the name of Defendant B, who was aware of the existence of Defendant B’s husband D, and that the delegation contract of this case was concluded without the power of attorney. The Defendants asserted that the delegation contract of this case was concluded without the power of attorney. As examined below, the Defendants’ assertion that the delegation contract of this case was concluded without the power of attorney and confirmed the delegation of duties of the Plaintiff’s agent. Considering the Defendants’ assertion that the delegation contract of this case was made with the Plaintiff as the heir of the network D, and that there was no special objection, the Defendants confirmed the delegation of duties of the Plaintiff’s agent. In light of the Defendants’ assertion that the delegation contract of this case was made due to unfair legal act due to groombling, grasing, and experience, Defendant B signed and sealed the delegation contract, and directly stated 10% of the economic benefits derived from winning the performance fee item, the above assertion by the Defendants cannot be deemed unfair legal act.

1) On August 12, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a claim against E for cancellation of ownership transfer registration under Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap91373 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”).

The primary and primary claims shall be made to claim the invalidity or cancellation of the gift contract.