1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul No. 1, 7, 8, and 9, each of the following facts: ① on April 7, 2009, the defendant prepared a lease contract (hereinafter "the lease contract of this case") with the term of 30 million won for 15th floor of the building located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, which is owned by the defendant to the plaintiff, for 24 months from April 25, 2009 to April 24, 201; ② as of April 7, 2009, the defendant had a joint representative director with D and Eul as a joint representative director, and D and Eul used separate representative director's official seal (corporation seal impression); ③ However, the lessor's name in the lease contract of this case was stated as "B(1) E, and the fact that the deposit of this case was not deposited in the account of this case with the defendant's seal No. 300,000 won.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. First, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on April 7, 2009, between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on lease No. 15th floor, and that the Plaintiff was obligated to refund the lease deposit KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff on the ground that the lease agreement was terminated by notifying the Plaintiff of the rejection of the renewal before the expiration of the lease term.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the lease contract concluded based on the instant lease agreement is based on the act of unauthorized representation in violation of the limitation of power of representation under the defendant's joint representative system, and thus, has no effect

In light of the above facts, although the joint representative regulations were stipulated in corporate register at the time of the formation of the instant lease agreement, only the name and the representative director’s seal are affixed to the instant lease agreement, and since the name and the representative director’s seal are omitted, it is deemed that one of the joint representative directors of the defendant was independently concluded.