All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the principal office.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case to be determined additionally as provided in paragraph 2. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance court, Defendant D’s D’, “Defendant E’s change to “E”.

Of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, the 6th sentence, 7th sentence, 4th sentence “B” corporation D (or G) shall be changed to each other.

Of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment on the counterclaim claim No. 7 with respect to the counterclaim claim No. 12 shall be corrected as the judgment on the counterclaim claim No. 7

The following shall be added to the 7th end of the seventh 17th judgment on the grounds of the judgment of the first instance:

[The entry into a business consignment agreement provides that "any business conducted for the defendant, such as the management of the lease contract (the preparation of the contract)" is "all the business conducted for the defendant, such as the management of the lease contract (Article 1), and the business is operated in the name of the defendant (Article 2)." The special agreement was made that "the virtual account in the name of the defendant may be made for the management of the lessee's deposit and rent," and this is all unnecessary if D, as argued by the defendant, directly enters into a contract with the lessee according to the management of the lease of the house in its own-management type."

2. The defendant asserts that the part to be determined additionally delegated the right to enter into a contract to D by limiting the scope of deposit money.

In the first instance court, the Defendant asserted this purport, but the first instance court did not render a separate judgment on the existence of a comprehensive power of attorney against D or E.

In addition to the statements Nos. 3 and 4-1, the defendant is the defendant of this case.