1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim changed in this court, is modified as follows.

The plaintiff.

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance should explain are as follows. Thus, the reasoning of the court of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the court of the first instance, and it is citing it as it is by the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The judgment on the principal claim of Defendant B and C is modified to “the judgment on the principal claim of Defendant B” in the 7th sentence of the judgment of the first instance. The 7th sentence of the judgment of the first instance changed to “the judgment on the principal claim of Defendant B and C” in the 7th sentence of the judgment of the first instance, “Defendant B” and “Defendant C” in the 8th sentence of the judgment of the first instance to “Defendant D and each person, who has mediated the sales contract of this case,” respectively. The 12th sentence of the judgment of the first instance to “the principal claim of Defendant B” in the 17th sentence of the judgment of the first instance to “the principal claim of Defendant B” in the 13th sentence of the judgment of the first instance to “the principal claim” in the 17th sentence of the judgment of the first instance to “the principal claim of Defendant D and each person,” and the 13th sentence of the 13th sentence of the judgment as follows.

A. In a case where it is recognized that Defendant B and C had arranged the instant sales contract Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant D had paid all the sales proceeds pursuant to the instant sales contract to Defendant D with the fiduciary duty as a broker for the instant sales contract, and Defendant D had the fiduciary duty, and had the fiduciary duty pursuant to Article 684(1) of the Civil Act delivered the money received from Defendant B and C to the Plaintiff, who was a delegating agent due to the handling of delegated affairs, but used the money received from the Plaintiff, without any authority from the Plaintiff, for a personal obligation to settle it with E without any authority.

Accordingly, since the Plaintiff did not receive any balance of the sales contracts Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant D was liable for tort liability or nonperformance of delegated duties, and thus, Defendant D concluded the first sales contract of this case with the Plaintiff at KRW 367,958,431.