1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the first part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which reads “lease deposit” as “lease deposit”; and (b) the second part’s “sub-lease” as “sub-lease deposit”; and (c) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of power of representation made by this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion of power of representation, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sub-lease contract for the instant building in the name of the Plaintiff while signing the instant sub-lease contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 20 million to K as a real estate intermediary according to the said sub-lease contract. Since the Defendants are aware of this, the Plaintiff and Defendant B concluded a sub-lease contract for the instant building.

When an agent performs an act on behalf of the principal, the principal is indicated in accordance with Article 114(1) of the Civil Act, and where an agent performs an act without the name of his/her representative relationship, in principle, the principal shall not be effective.

However, the present name indicating that an agent is for the principal does not necessarily need to be explicitly and explicitly stated, and even if the present name is not present, if the other party knew or could have known that an agent was acting as an agent in light of various circumstances, it shall have effect on the principal pursuant to the proviso of Article 115 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da5434, Nov. 10, 201). As to the instant case, health class and the instant agreement was concluded between Defendant B and H on September 25, 2014; the sub-lease contract was made between the former lessee and H on the same day; the sub-lease contract made between the Plaintiff and the former lessee on the same day; the sub-lease contract made between the former and the latter. At that time, H was drafted as the Plaintiff’s agent.