1. The Defendants receive each money indicated in the “lease Deposit” column for each Defendant in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a 117.57 square meters of single-story, 117.57 square meters of single-story, 2-story, 3-story, and 117.57 square meters of multi-story, 3-story, and 109.84 square meters of multi-story (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. From July 2010, E operated the office of licensed real estate agents with the trade name of “H Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City by borrowing a licensed real estate agent’s license from F.

C. On February 26, 2016, Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with E, claiming that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s agent by brokerage at the above Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 28 million with respect to subparagraph 103 of the instant building from February 28, 2016 to February 27, 2018, and around that time, Defendant B paid KRW 30 million with E the lease deposit.

On December 29, 2014, Defendant C entered into a lease agreement between E and E claiming that the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s agent by brokerage at the above Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million with respect to subparagraph 301 of the instant building from January 5, 2015 to January 4, 2016, and thereafter, Defendant C paid KRW 28 million with E around that time.

(c)In the event that the lease agreement under subsection (d) is combined with 'each of the instant lease agreements' 'the grounds for recognition' 'the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-10, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 1, 2, 6-8, 11-18, each of the statements and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. (1) The Plaintiff merely delegated Plaintiff E with the authority to conclude a monthly rent contract, the authority to receive monthly rent, etc. on the instant building; and there was no fact that the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract and granted the authority to receive the lease deposit. Each of the instant lease agreements is null and void as it was based on an unauthorized representation.

B. Therefore, the Defendants delivered the subject matter to the Plaintiff, and as sought by the Plaintiff, the subject matter from February 1, 2016.