1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The "building" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter "Licensed Real Estate Agents Act") shall be deemed to include not only the existing building but also the specific building to be constructed first, so it shall be deemed that mediating transactions, such as purchase and sale, even before the specific apartment is completed after the buyer was selected as to the specific building and number of apartment units or the sales contract was concluded (see Supreme Court Decisions 89Do1885, Feb. 13, 1990; 2004Do62, May 27, 2005, etc.).

In addition, even if the buyer did not select a specific building or unit number or conclude a sales contract, it is merely a procedure to determine the units of the Dong and unit number of houses scheduled for the future as the object of sale to a specific unit buyer, and the unit buyer itself is guaranteed as a matter of course, and if the units subject to sale exist objectively and the units subject to sale are in a situation where the actual provision of the unit unit as the object of sale is possible upon completion of the entire construction of the target apartment, it is reasonable to view that the sales brokerage is also an "building brokerage" as provided by the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.

B. The lower court: (a) premised on the premise that “where the number of units of the apartment in which the construction was scheduled to be built is determined, the act of the co-defendants of the first instance court, who arranged the instant sales contract that the Plaintiff would purchase and sell a non-specified household among the apartment units scheduled to be sold, constitutes a brokerage of the building, even if the sale and purchase, etc. of the non-specified household among the apartment units scheduled to be sold, constitutes a brokerage of the object of brokerage as provided by the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act.”

Even in cases where the number of units of apartment units scheduled to be constructed is determined, as long as the number of units of apartment units is not specified, the possibility that the construction of apartment units itself is not carried out, unlike the original scheduled unit, cannot be ruled out, and it cannot be concluded that all applicants for parcelling-out can naturally purchase apartment units as a matter of course because the number of applicants for parcelling-out units in the future can exceed the fixed number of units in the sale process in the future.

Therefore, as long as the number of units of apartment units scheduled to be constructed is not specified, even if the number of units of apartment units is determined, it shall be deemed that the number of units of apartment units still becomes the number of unit buyers, and thus, it shall not be deemed that it is a building that is an object of brokerage under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act.

Therefore, the above legal principles based on the premise of the court below cannot be deemed appropriate.

C. However, according to the records, the apartment of this case was already constructed at the time the sales contract of this case was concluded, and the apartment of this case was constructed under the housing redevelopment project implemented by the housing association. The apartment of this case is objectively designated and secured from this construction before the construction, so the object of sale to a specific association member is determined through future lottery. The sales contract of this case is for 32 square meters that the housing construction company, an agent, has already secured as the termination of the partnership subscription contract with the original association member, among the households of the apartment of this case, among the households of the members of the association of this case. Accordingly, according to the contents of the sales contract of this case, the apartment of this case is naturally sold 32 square meters among the members of the housing construction company, on behalf of the association members at which the plaintiff was terminated.

Therefore, according to the above legal principles as seen in paragraph (1), even if the number of units and units of apartment units subject to the instant sales contract is not specified, as long as the instant sales contract is subject to the 32-type 1 household that the execution agency has been secured due to the cancellation of the agreement with the union members, among the apartment units of this case, and the construction of the instant apartment units has already been completed at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the "32-type 1 household from among the units and units unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the act of the co-defendant who arranged the sales contract of this case constitutes the act of brokerage of the object as prescribed by the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act is just in its conclusion and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the object of brokerage as prescribed by the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act, which affected the conclusion

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, it is just that the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which partially accepted the plaintiff's claim for mutual aid money under the mutual aid agreement of this case by recognizing that the plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to the sale price due to the negligent act of the co-defendant of the court of first instance for reasons as stated in its holding, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law such

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)