1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

2. Defendant C: (a) KRW 50,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses.

1. On March 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C and Defendant B to lease the instant housing Nos. 403 with the deposit deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000, and the period of March 7, 2015, and paid the deposit money.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the claim against the main defendant B

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim 1) was that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant C, who was duly authorized to rent the instant housing No. 403 on March 8, 2015. Since the lease contract expired on March 8, 2015, Defendant B, a lessor, should return KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff at the same time as the Plaintiff’s delivery of the instant housing No. 403. 2) The Defendant B did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff granted the Defendant C the right of representation to enter into the instant lease agreement on the instant housing No. 403, and thus, this assertion cannot be accepted.

B. Defendant C owned No. 403 of the instant house, but transferred ownership to Defendant B and D, who was its children, and thereafter, had basic power of attorney as to the instant house 403, while managing management expenses and water supply tax.

In excess of such power of representation, Defendant C was subject to the power of representation to conclude a lease agreement on the instant housing No. 403 with Defendant B, and the Plaintiff had justifiable grounds to believe, and Defendant B is liable for the act of representation.

In other words, around December 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C, who represented by Defendant B and D, to lease Nos. 401 located adjacent to the instant housing No. 403 and to move to a wider place.

There was no problem in the lease agreement of 401.