1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall deliver to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the building indicated in the separate sheet from May 30, 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 25, 2012, the Plaintiff is the owner who completed the registration of ownership transfer for the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On April 2, 2012, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement between C and the instant building, claiming as the Plaintiff’s agent, with the lease term of KRW 70 million until May 30, 2014, and the lease deposit of KRW 70 million.

(‘instant lease agreement’). (c)

From May 30, 2012, the defendant occupies and uses the above building.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that “the Plaintiff granted only the right to purchase the building to C. The instant lease agreement is due to the act of unauthorized representation in C, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building possessed without title to the Plaintiff and pay the monthly rent by the date of delivery as unjust enrichment.” The Plaintiff seeks implementation as the principal lawsuit.

B. The Defendant asserts that “C has lawfully granted the right of representation from the Plaintiff, and thus the validity of the instant lease agreement extends to the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant terminated the lease agreement, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the lease deposit paid to C to the Defendant,” and sought payment as a counterclaim.

3. Determination

A. The key issue in this case is whether the Plaintiff granted C the right of representation for the conclusion of a lease contract. The key issue in this case is whether the Plaintiff granted C the right of representation for the conclusion of a lease contract.

The fact that the plaintiff has the power to purchase the building to C is also recognized by the plaintiff.

However, as to whether the right of representation regarding the conclusion of a lease agreement was granted, it is difficult to believe that some of the testimonys of the witness C as shown above is reliance, and each statement of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of granting the right of representation.

The Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement.