1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 in the sales contract, the fact that the non-party C representing the defendant around March 29, 2006 prepared a sales contract stating that the defendant would sell the No. 13,600,000 won of the price to the plaintiff of the non-party D and the No. 13 lot No. 13 lot No. 13 lot No. 2 (hereinafter "the building of this case") to the plaintiff around September 29, 2006.

2. The gist of the party’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. The Plaintiff purchased the instant building from the Plaintiff and paid the price in full. The Defendant’s agent agreed to refund the sales price on the ground that the instant building was not completed at the time of the contract, and the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant for the return of the sales price against the Defendant, the Defendant alleged that the right of representation was granted to Nonparty C or that the Plaintiff did not sell the instant building.

3. Determination

A. It is insufficient to recognize that the evidence of the submission of the plaintiff alone had the authority to conclude a sales contract on behalf of the defendant C, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to this, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant bears the responsibility for expressive representation under Article 126 or 129 of the Civil Code, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant had the basic right to represent the defendant C. Thus, the above argument by the plaintiff is without merit without examining further.

Furthermore, even if the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was bona fide and without fault, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is still without merit.

(A) The documents proving C's power of representation, such as certificate of personal seal impression and power of attorney at the time, or documents verifying C's power do not peep into the defendant).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is without merit.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim.