1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2019, the deceased A (spouse, Plaintiff C, and Plaintiff D) sold or purchased real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate 1 through 3 real estate”) as listed in the following table. At the time of the instant two real estate transaction, the Defendant mediated the seller at the time of the instant three real estate transaction and mediated both the seller and the buyer at the time of the instant three real estate transaction.

On January 18, 2018, the date of the remainder of the contract date divided by sequence 1, the seller’s object of purchase on January 10, 2018, the date of the registration of the remainder of the contract date, shall be as follows: AF G apartment H H H-2, March 23, 2018; AF G apartment on January 18, 2018; A; B (3) acquired on January 18, 2018; B (J building K-ho on January 25, 2018; and (4) Plaintiff D Seoul Metropolitan Government M apartment and N-ho on February 28, 2018.

B. On June 12, 2019, the Deceased was notified of KRW 175,302,190, and KRW 17,530,210, total of KRW 192,832,40, and KRW 192,832,40, on the ground that it constitutes three houses for one household at the time of transfer of the instant real estate by the tax authority.

[Reasons for Recognition] 3 to 7, 22, 24 to 26 each entry

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff suffered losses from additional payments of KRW 192,832,40, including capital gains tax, by having the Deceased change the date of transfer of ownership, etc. of the instant three real estate from March 28, 2018 to February 28, 2018, and thereby having the Deceased pay additional KRW 192,832,40,00, such as capital gains tax. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, the inheritor of

B. 1) The legal relationship between a real estate broker and a client is the same as a delegation relationship under the Civil Act. Therefore, a broker is obligated to perform the brokerage business requested with the care of a good manager according to the intent of a good manager’s request for brokerage (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da44156, Nov. 15, 2007). As such, even if a real estate broker does not bear the duty of explanation to a client by investigating and verifying it, it is an important material for the client to determine whether to conclude a contract.