1. The defendant shall deliver all the 4th floor of the building listed in the separate sheet from the plaintiff to the plaintiff, at the same time, 150,000.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the owner who completed registration of ownership preservation on October 19, 191 with respect to the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On April 9, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, the Defendant’s mother, who was the Defendant’s agent, with respect to the entire area of 78 square meters on the fourth floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant housing”) with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 130,00,000, and the lease term from May 9, 2014 to May 9, 2016, and began to reside after receiving the lease deposit in full.

C. On May 9, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor to increase the lease deposit amount to KRW 20,00,000 and to extend the lease period to KRW 2 years (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 20, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, who was granted the comprehensive power of representation for the conclusion and management of the lease agreement of the instant housing by the Defendant, and the Defendant also recognized the validity of the instant lease agreement. On October 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease agreement was terminated pursuant to Article 6-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act by notifying the Defendant of his intention of termination to the Defendant’s side and that the instant lease agreement was terminated. The Plaintiff sought that the Plaintiff return KRW 150,000,000 for the deposit to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery

Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Intervenor did not have the right to conclude the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant.

3. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 6 through 10, Gap evidence Nos. 16 and 17, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant shall be the defendant.