1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance, except where the defendant added the following additional judgments, even if considering the defendant's supplemental arguments in the appellate court. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant asserts that if the Supreme Court Decision 2012Da42154 Decided July 10, 2014, which recognized the broker’s liability for damages, also applies to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages should be recognized.

However, the facts of the above Supreme Court decision differs from the facts of this case in important parts, such as the fact that the broker provided false information as having high possibility of resale, and actively participated in the realization of the contractual obligations of the parties, and that if unregistered pre-sales are not properly performed, it is practically impossible to maintain the sales contract.

The defendant's argument opposed to this is without merit.

3. The decision of the first instance court on the conclusion is justifiable.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.