1. The defendant shall pay 35,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 18, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to KRW 313 (hereinafter “instant building”) out of the real estate listed in the [Attachment List owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Dtel”) as a broker by a licensed real estate agent C, with a deposit of KRW 35,00,000, and the period from June 21, 201 to June 20, 2013.

B. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the lessor, who is the husband of the Defendant, was present at the lessor E and D officetel, and the lessor: (a) delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of delegation in the name of the Defendant (However, this power of delegation cannot be recognized as to the authenticity as seen earlier), a certified copy of the resident registration card, and a copy of the resident registration certificate; and (b) affixed the seal of the Defendant’s name, which he had been in custody, to the contract

C. At the time of the contract, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 300,000 to E, and deposited the remainder of KRW 34,700,000 in E’s account on June 20, 201, and thereafter occupied the instant building.

The Plaintiff continued to reside in the instant building in an implied renewal state after June 20, 2013, which is the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, and continued to reside in the instant building on April 21, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 5 (including paper numbers), witness F testimony, part of witness C’s testimony (excluding parts not trusted in the front) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since Plaintiff E obtained a legitimate power of representation from the Defendant and concluded the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff, the said lease agreement also becomes effective for the Defendant.

Even if there was no power of representation on the instant lease agreement to E, the Defendant’s husband entered into the instant lease agreement beyond the authority of the E, which has ordinary power of representation, and the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff had a legitimate power of representation on the instant lease agreement at the time.