1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. At the preliminary claim, the plaintiff and the defendant are raised between the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. On December 15, 2015, C, the spouse of the Plaintiff, entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, with the name of the Plaintiff, which sets forth a purchase price of KRW 41.8 billion with respect to the Yongsan-gu Apartmentdong-gu 108 Dong-gu 2704 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, C, the Plaintiff’s spouse, entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on the purchase price of KRW 411.8 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), withdrawn KRW 10 million from his/her own deposit account, and paid the Defendant a tax invoice under the Plaintiff’s name.

At the time of the instant sales contract, C submitted to the Defendant the Plaintiff’s seal imprint certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, driver’s license, certified copy and abstract of resident registration.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 6 evidence, Eul 3 and 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion was that C entered into the instant sales contract by stealing the plaintiff's name without the plaintiff's delegation. Thus, the instant sales contract was concluded by a person without authority, and thus null and void. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the down payment received to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, and even if the down payment is not returned to the plaintiff, the instant sales contract is null and void.

As to this, the defendant granted the right of representation to C, and even if not, it is not so.

Even if the plaintiff's right of representation as to the plaintiff's daily home life does an act beyond his authority, the defendant did not know it without negligence, and therefore, the sales contract of this case is valid.

B. Whether a power of representation was granted or not, the fact that C entered into the instant sales contract in the Plaintiff’s name as the Plaintiff’s agent is not a dispute between the parties. As such, C appears to have been granted the power of representation regarding the conclusion of the sales contract by the Plaintiff at the site.