1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty C, the Defendant’s representative, is a project implementer that newly constructs a commercial building “F” (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) on the ground of Osan-si, where the Defendant and Nonparty D owned one-half shares, respectively.

B. On May 14, 2008, from the Defendant, the representative of D and C, the Plaintiff drafted a sales contract in which the Plaintiff would sell the 7th floor No. 163.48 square meters of the instant commercial building (8.88 square meters of exclusive use area, 74.61 square meters of common use area, hereinafter “instant store”) at KRW 346,150,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

On the same day, Nonparty G was delegated with the authority to sell the instant store from the Defendant and drafted the instant sales contract together with D.

C. On May 14, 2008, the Plaintiff received KRW 346,150,000 from the sales price of the instant store. The Plaintiff was issued a receipt under the Defendant’s name.

The commercial building of this case was completed under the name of “H,” and the ownership transfer registration under the name of Nonparty I was completed on October 12, 201 due to the sale of the commercial building by voluntary auction on October 12, 201, under the receipt of the 154458 of 12 October 12, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers in the case of additional number), Eul evidence No. 1 or video, witness D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) Whether the conclusion of the instant sales contract constitutes an act within the scope of authority 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion D sold the instant store on behalf of the Defendant as the execution agent of the instant shopping mall, and the Plaintiff paid the sales price in full. Since the ownership of the instant shopping mall was transferred to a third party and the Defendant’s obligation to sell the instant store was impossible, the Plaintiff’s sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) The defendant revoked and the defendant is obligated to return the sales price received from the plaintiff. 2) The defendant raises objection against the defendant.