1. The Defendants, together with the delivery of real estate stated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, jointly with the Plaintiff on 27,008.

1. Basic facts

A. From January 2012, the Defendants delegated the Defendants’ right to manage the F Building, owned by the Defendants, to E, who are employees of Defendant B, a company with the representative director.

B. On July 31, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the lessor Defendants, the lease deposit amount of KRW 25 million, KRW 80,000 per month, management expenses, and KRW 50,000 per month for E and F buildings. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 25 million to the Defendants.

On the other hand, E issued to the Plaintiff on the same day a receipt stating 2.5 million won as “B price E”.

C. On July 17, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants, the Defendants, the lease deposit money of KRW 30 million, the lease term of KRW 100,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 100,000,000 for the F building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) between E and E, who is named as the Defendants’ agent, and paid KRW 5 million to E on the same day.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence No. 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease contract was concluded with E, a representative of the Defendants.

Even if not, the Defendants granted E the right to manage the instant real estate, and as the Plaintiff has justifiable grounds to believe that E has a legitimate right to represent the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendants’ apparent representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act is established.

B. The Defendants’ assertion E does not have the authority to conclude the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Defendants, and the Plaintiff was negligent in not verifying the existence of the Plaintiff’s authority to act on behalf of the Defendants, even though it was a circumstance to doubt whether E has the authority to conclude the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Defendants, as such, Article 126 of the Civil Act.