1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

B. From May 15, 2016, the above A

subsection (b).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “the instant telecom”).

On December 17, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the instant cartel to D, the wife of C, with a deposit of KRW 120 million; (b) monthly rent of KRW 3.5 million; (c) on October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract with a deposit of KRW 300,000 per month; and (d) on October 16, 2016, with a lease term fixed from October 17, 2014 to October 2016.

B. On January 18, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on a deposit of KRW 130 million, monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million, and from February 15, 2016 to February 14, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and deposited KRW 130 million as the lease deposit into an account in the name of E designated by C from January 18, 2016 to February 17, 2016. From February 15, 2016, the Defendant occupied and operated the instant franchise from around February 15, 2016.

C. On February 17, 2017, upon entering into the instant lease agreement from the instant court, C was sentenced to punishment of one year and six months for the crime of forging private documents, the crime of uttering of a falsified investigation document, and imprisonment for fraud, with respect to the criminal fact that he/she forged the power of attorney, the instant lease agreement, etc. in the name of the Plaintiff and acquired the security deposit by deceiving the Defendant.

(No. 1, No. 4, No. 6, and No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole, of the facts without dispute (based on recognition)

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not delegate C with the authority to rent the instant her mother, and the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement and did not consider whether C’s right of representation exists to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant her mother, but did not pay the lease deposit to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have the right to occupy the instant telecom, and delivered the instant telecom to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant telecom.