1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 5, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C and B to purchase the status of the purchaser of the I apartment 519 Dong 202 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) located in Sejong-si, the G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office located in F through the mediation of Defendant C and B (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and received a contract for the supply of apartment units and the balcony extension contract for the said apartment that the purchaser is H, and the sales contract for the apartment unit (a seller’s signature and seal is affixed to the seller’s column, and both the remaining buyers, the sales price, the object of the sale, the date of the sale, and the sales).

B. On April 1, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5,000,000 as the down payment for the instant sale to the account under the name of Defendant C, and KRW 22,591,000 as of April 5, 2012 to the account under the name of Defendant E (Defendant B’s father) designated by Defendant B, and paid KRW 1,00,000 as the brokerage commission to Defendant B.

C. Defendant D is a licensed real estate agent who established the said G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in which the instant transaction was mediated.

Facts which have no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence and the purport of whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the claim for damages arising from the tort against the Defendants, the Plaintiff asserted: (i) even though H had already sold the status of the buyer of the instant apartment to another person and could not transfer the status of the buyer to the Plaintiff, the Defendants conspired with the Plaintiff as if they could have transferred the status of the buyer (inducing the status of the buyer), and (ii) even though the seller of the instant sales contract was in fact J, K, and L, but the Defendants conspired with the Plaintiff as if the seller was H, not H, but the seller was H, K, and L, and caused the fraudulent act to mislead the Plaintiff as if the seller was H (inducing the identity of the seller), and thereby, the Plaintiff