The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 1, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C and the Defendant’s agent for the term of KRW 10,000,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000, and the term of lease from August 15, 2016 to August 14, 2018.

B. The instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed once, and the Defendant, as of October 14, 2019, did not pay KRW 36,600,000, electricity tax of KRW 1,407,60, and water tax of KRW 60,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C entered into the instant lease agreement on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant lawfully, and the Defendant delayed to pay that of the second period and terminated the instant lease agreement by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the unpaid rent and public charges.

B. The burden of proof on the existence of the judgment authority is the person who asserts the effect.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da42047 delivered on February 22, 1994). However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the statement of evidence Nos. 2 through 4 alone existed with respect to the instant lease agreement with the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that C has the power of representation.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.