1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. B entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Plaintiff around March 2010, and entered into a trust agreement with the Plaintiff as to the instant apartment Nos. 527 and 1003, Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by B as the first beneficiary, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant apartment on March 9, 2010.

B. As the Plaintiff did not pay the debt, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant Company to sell the apartment in this case. The Defendant Company determined the first public auction on the apartment in this case as KRW 1,875,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) and conducted the public auction from June 11, 2013. However, on July 2, 2013, the first 13, 14 (the public auction is equivalent to KRW 962,526,00, value-added tax amounting to KRW 24,063,40), 15 (the public auction is equivalent to KRW 914,401,00, value-added tax amounting to KRW 22,860,30, value-added tax amounting to KRW 300).

C. Accordingly, on July 19, 2013, Defendant Company concluded the instant sales contract that sells the instant apartment to D as a broker of Defendant A, with the purchase price of KRW 990 million (value-added tax 24750,000), including the value-added tax, and received the payment. On August 28, 2013, Defendant Company requested the Plaintiff to settle the accounts for the purchase price of the instant apartment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 13 evidence, Eul 1 to 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the value-added tax is separately imposed on Defendant A, and that the contract can be concluded if the Plaintiff sold the apartment of this case in KRW 990 million.

Nevertheless, as seen above, A mediates the conclusion of a sales contract with the total purchase price of KRW 90 million, and the Defendant Company incurred damages equivalent to KRW 24.75 million to the Plaintiff upon entering into the contract. As such, the Defendants are liable to compensate each Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 24.75 million.