The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) receives KRW 80,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and simultaneously receives it from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 8, 2018, the Defendant drafted a brokerage assistant C, D (However, the name of the agent was stated in E, a licensed real estate agent), and deposit amount of KRW 80,000,00 for the instant real estate (payment of KRW 10,000 for the contract, intermediate payment of KRW 20,000 for the intermediate payment, KRW 20,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 20,000 for the contract, June 11, 2018, the remainder amount of KRW 50,000 for the payment on June 20, 2018), and the period from June 20, 2018 to June 20, 2019 for the term (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the special agreement stipulated in paragraph (2) of the same Article as “a lease agreement after a monetary lease, and entered the remainder of the terms and conditions of the contract at the time of ratification (hereinafter “the agreement”).

B. The Defendant occupied the instant real estate from June 20, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 7 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The summary of the main claim is that the Plaintiff did not grant E, C, and D the authority to conclude the instant lease agreement or to receive the deposit, and thus, the instant lease agreement is null and void. The Plaintiff sold the instant real estate prior to the date of conclusion of the instant lease agreement. The Defendant was aware of KRW 30,00,000 deposited from the Defendant as part of the purchase price. Since the Defendant without legitimate title possessed the instant real estate, E or C, and D seek the delivery of the instant real estate and the payment of unjust enrichment based on ownership. 2) The main point of the counterclaim claim is that E or C, and D were granted the Plaintiff’s comprehensive power of representation for the conclusion of the instant lease agreement and the receipt of the deposit, and even if not, there is justifiable reason to believe that the Defendant was such authority on E, and thus, the instant lease agreement is valid, and thus, sought the return of the deposit upon termination of the instant lease agreement

B. Determination 1 on the ground of the claim on the main claim is determined.