beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C is modified as follows.
Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).
Reasons
1. The scope of the judgment of this court filed a claim against the Defendants and the joint Defendants D and B of the first instance trial against the Defendants, and the court of first instance partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim, and only the Defendants and the Plaintiff appealed (the Plaintiff appealed only to the Defendants). The scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants.
2. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) and the Defendant E is a licensed real estate agent operating F real estate, and D is a person who jointly operates the instant real estate with Defendant E, by providing a building lease deposit, office office fixtures, etc. for the said real estate business from June 2007 to August 2010.
B. B, on February 27, 2010, concluded a lease contract with the Plaintiff’s authority to conclude a lease contract through Defendant E’s brokerage, and with respect to the instant building No. 1 owned by the Plaintiff, “The Plaintiff, lessee B, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 330,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 330,000,000, and from February 27, 2010 to February 26, 2011, and thereafter, paid KRW 20,000,000 as the above lease deposit to D, and thereafter resided after delivery of the instant building No. 1.
C. On May 30, 2009, Defendant C, who asserted that he was delegated by the Plaintiff with the authority to conclude a lease contract through Defendant E’s brokerage, prepared a lease contract with the Plaintiff, “The Plaintiff, the lessee, the lessee C, the lease deposit amount of KRW 35 million, and the lease term from May 30, 2009 to May 29, 201” (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with respect to the instant building No. 2 owned by the Plaintiff, and around that time, paid KRW 35 million to D and resided after delivery of the instant building No. 2.
D At the time of concluding a lease agreement on the building Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, D, which was an operator of the above F Real Estate, was from the Plaintiff.