1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 7-1 and 2, on February 5, 2009, the defendant written a lease contract (hereinafter "the lease contract in this case") with the term of 14th floor of the building located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Seoul (hereinafter "the contract in this case") owned by the defendant to the plaintiff about 30,000,000, and 24th month of the lease term. At the time of February 5, 2009, the defendant made D and Eul as joint representative director, and the joint representative rules were registered, and D and Eul were used with separate representative director's official seal, but the lessor's form of the lease contract in this case stated "E and one other," and it can be recognized that only attached the official seal of the representative director in this case E.

2. Determination

A. On February 5, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the condition that the Defendant leased the above building 17, and the Plaintiff was obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,00,000 to the Plaintiff since the lease agreement was terminated by notifying the Plaintiff of the rejection of renewal before the expiration of the lease term. The Defendant asserted that the lease agreement to be concluded on the basis of the instant lease agreement was based on the Defendant’s act of unauthorized Representation, which violated the Defendant’s joint representation system, and thus, is invalid to the Defendant.

B. In light of the above facts, although the defendant had a joint representative director at the time of the preparation of the instant lease agreement, only the name and the representative director’s seal are affixed to the instant lease agreement, and the name and the representative director’s seal are omitted, and one of the joint representative directors of the defendant was independently concluded. Therefore, the lease agreement based on the preparation of the instant lease agreement constitutes an act of unauthorized representative in violation of the limitation of the power of representation under the joint representative agreement system, and thus, it does not belong

Therefore, this is disputed.