1. Defendant B pays to the Plaintiff KRW 85,000,000.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.

3...

1. Claim against the defendant B

(a) Indication of claims: It is as shown in the attached Form;

(b) Grounds: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On February 4, 2012, the Defendants and the Defendants jointly owned, Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant building”).

(3) As to subparagraph 302, a lease agreement is concluded with a deposit of KRW 85,00,000 and the term of lease from March 17, 2012 to March 17, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) Defendant C signed the instant lease agreement on behalf of Defendant C by entrusting Defendant B with the authority to conclude the instant lease agreement on No. 302, and Defendant C concluded the said lease agreement on behalf of Defendant C. (2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 85,000,000 to Defendant B by remitting the deposit money to the relevant business account book. Since the instant lease agreement was terminated after the expiration of the period, Defendant C is liable to pay the Plaintiff deposit amount of KRW 85,00,000 as a joint lessor.

3) Even if Defendant B entered into the instant lease agreement beyond the authority delegated by Defendant C, the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, has justifiable grounds to believe that Defendant B had the authority to conclude the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant C, and accordingly, Defendant C is liable in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act. 4) In addition, Defendant C was aware that the instant lease agreement was concluded, even though it was known that it was concluded, and thus, Defendant C was impliedly responsible for ratification of Defendant B’s act of unauthorized Representation.

B. 1) As to whether Defendant C acted as a lawful agent or not, whether Defendant C entrusted Defendant B with the authority to enter into a lease agreement on No. 302 of the instant building, the evidence No. 1 cannot be deemed as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the said agreement, and the evidence No. 6 through 8 (including the serial number, and as to the National Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. of this Court.