1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) decided to purchase, as the Defendant’s brokerage, the purchase price of KRW 4550 million with respect to C Apartment 104, 606 (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) transferred KRW 1 million to an account in the name of the seller as a provisional contract deposit at the Defendant’s request on September 10, 2014; and (c) decided to prepare a sales contract with the seller on September 13, 2014.

However, at the time of the transfer of the above provisional contract money, the Defendant was appropriated for loans by 60% out of the intermediate payment of the sales price for the said real estate, and the seller did not notify the seller that part of the intermediate payment repaid by the seller should be paid to the seller prior to the due date. On September 12, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that 60% of the intermediate payment of the sales price was appropriated for the loan, but the seller repaid 30% of the intermediate payment, and that part of the intermediate payment should be paid prior

Therefore, the Plaintiff was unable to waive the conclusion of the above sales contract, and thereby the Defendant suffered losses from failure to return the above provisional contract amount. Although the Defendant, as a licensed real estate agent, did not notify the Plaintiff of matters concerning the legal relationship, etc. of the object of brokerage, and did not notify the Plaintiff thereof, and thus, the Plaintiff could not be refunded KRW 1 million of the provisional contract amount remitted to the seller. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above damages amount to KRW 1 million and delay damages.

2. The fact that the Plaintiff decided to purchase the right to sell the instant real estate through the Defendant’s brokerage, and that on September 10, 2014, transferred KRW 1 million to D as the provisional contract deposit to the purchaser of the instant real estate, is not a dispute between the parties. However, as the Plaintiff’s assertion, whether the waiver of the said provisional contract was caused by the Defendant’s breach of the duty to explain is a health class, Gap’s evidence, Eul’s evidence, Eul’s evidence, and Eul’s evidence, Eul’s evidence, and six.