1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant (appointed party) and the designated parties shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where "the results of fact inquiry with respect to the head of Jongno-gu Office of the court of the first instance" is "the results of fact inquiry with respect to the head of Jongno-gu Office of the court of the first instance" in the part concerning the reasons for the judgment in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the same Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The deceased K’s heir (=N, H, E, Defendant (Appointed Party), Defendant (Appointed Party), F, and G) comprehensively granted the authority to manage the instant building on his/her behalf and to conclude the instant lease contract on his/her behalf. Accordingly, E entered into the instant lease contract on behalf of the rest of the successors. 2) Even if E entered into the instant lease contract without delegation from the rest of the successors, the rest of the successors are dissatisfied with the Plaintiff or need to leave.

Since there was no request, it ratified the act of unauthorized representation of E implicitly.

3) Since the term of the instant lease agreement has expired, the Defendant (Appointed) and the appointed parties are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the claim. (b) On the sole basis of the foregoing recognition alone, it is difficult to presume that the other inheritors of the Dong K comprehensively granted the right to enter into the instant lease agreement on behalf of the head E by taking charge of the building management of the instant building, or granting the power to enter into the instant lease agreement on behalf of the head E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Furthermore, the remaining inheritors except E were neglected to object to the instant lease agreement for a long period without raising objection thereto, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the act of unauthorized representation was ratified (see Supreme Court Decision 200 March 27, 190).