1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. August 29, 2016

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

On the premise, the Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”).

The Defendant, at the time of August 22, 2015, concluded a lease agreement between C and C claiming that the Plaintiff’s agent is KRW 14.4 million for lease deposit, KRW 210,000 per month for rent, and the period from August 22, 2015 to August 22, 2016, and occupied the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, and summary of the parties' assertion in the whole pleadings, although the plaintiff C participated in the lease of the real estate of this case, the plaintiff revoked the delegation and granted the power of representation to lease the real estate of this case to D, etc.

Since the defendant concludes a lease agreement with C without authority to represent the plaintiff and occupies the real estate of this case without title, he/she shall return unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff as the owner.

The Defendant concluded a lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff with C with respect to the instant real estate, on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Since the term of the Defendant’s lease contract expires, the Plaintiff should return the deposit to the Defendant KRW 14.4 million.

Considering the following circumstances that are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective statements in Gap 2 through 10, 13 through 19, 21, Eul 1, 2, and 3, as well as the overall purport of pleadings in the testimony of Eul and Eul as to the claim for delivery of the instant real estate, it is reasonable to deem that at the time when the defendant entered into a lease agreement, the plaintiff granted D the right to lease the instant real estate, and C did not have the right to lease the instant real estate on behalf of the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant's lease agreement does not affect the plaintiff.

Therefore, this case.