1. On August 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on the Plaintiff’s share of 660/3,00 of the 3,300 square meters of Cheongju-gu C Forest and fields; (b) on August 24, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 24, 2015, the Defendant: (a) sold the purchase price of KRW 3300,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant at KRW 480,000,000; (b) concluded a sales contract with the content that the contract deposit shall be KRW 50,000,000; and (c) the remainder amount shall be KRW 430,000,000,000 shall be paid on October 21, 2015.

B. On August 24, 2015, D, as the Defendant’s agent, sold 660 square meters of the instant land as KRW 120 million between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, but concluded a sales contract to pay the remainder of KRW 50 million on August 24, 2015 and the remainder of KRW 70 million on August 27, 2015 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

[Judgment of the court below] Facts that there was no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant has granted D the right to sell all or part of the land of this case on behalf of the defendant, or at least an expression agency is established. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer under the sales contract of this case, and the defendant asserts that it does not grant D the right of representation, and that it does not constitute an expression agency.

B. In full view of the evidence as seen earlier, Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 8 (including the number of each branch number), witness D’s testimony and the fact-finding results and the overall purport of the arguments against E company of this court, the sales contract written between the defendant and D on the land of this case stated that “C grants D the authority to construct and sell the land of this case.” The land of this case was designed as one parcel indicated as “E site” on the design drawing prepared by E company in relation to its development and obtained design permission from the pertinent authorities. The defendant and D visited the office of E company around October 2015 and visited the E company.