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

A. Upon the introduction of Defendant C, a broker assistant for Defendant B, the Plaintiff became aware of the land E and F of the members of Ansan-si, the Plaintiff owned and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On September 28, 2017, the Plaintiff is a broker of Defendant B and D.

The sales contract for each of the instant lands and the instant buildings indicated in the subsection (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) was concluded, and the payment was made by November 17, 2017, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in his/her name.

C. On May 15, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to G by setting the lease deposit amounting to KRW 40 million, KRW 1.5 million per month, and the lease period from May 15, 2018 to May 14, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion purchased the instant building for commercial use, and leased it to G who wishes to operate a restaurant.

However, while G completed remodeling of the instant building and applied for a business license to the member-gu Office, G did not obtain a business license on the ground that the instant building was in violation of its duty to maintain at least 50cm of the distance from the boundary of neighboring land (hereinafter “the distance violation”) and illegally extended toilets.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff: (a) removed one part of the instant building in violation of the separation distance and installed a new wall; and (b) paid a total of KRW 84,50,000 for repair work; and (c) imposed a charge for compelling the performance of KRW 5,749,890 from the Ansan market.

Defendant B, as a licensed real estate agent, is obligated to examine, confirm and explain the boundary of the building of this case as a brokerage assistant, and even if the seller was notified of the violation of the distance and the illegal extension of toilets, the Plaintiff did not explain it.