1. The Defendants’ respective Plaintiff KRW 65,000,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from October 23, 2015.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition 1) Defendant B operated the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) at “Yansan-gu C and 102”, and Defendant Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”).

(2) From March 3, 2014 to March 2, 2015, Defendant B and Defendant B entered into the instant mutual aid agreement to compensate for the damage incurred by the transaction party within the limit of KRW 100 million in the event that the property damage was inflicted upon the transaction party intentionally or by negligence in acting as a broker for Defendant B’s licensed real estate agent. 2) On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate “Yansan-gu C 1918”, which is the instant real estate owned by Defendant B, and paid the down payment in KRW 3 million to Defendant B. On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff confirmed a copy of the identification card of E presented by Defendant B and Defendant B, which was delegated all lease rights by E, and completed the lease agreement on the instant real estate, and paid the remainder of KRW 72 million to Defendant B, and occupied the instant real estate on the same day.

3) However, on May 15, 2014, Defendant B arranged to prepare a lease contract of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000 (Evidence A5) with the “F,” which was introduced by Defendant B as the Plaintiff on May 15, 2014, and paid KRW 10,000,000 to E in accordance with the above lease contract. 4) After having been aware of the aforementioned dual lease brokerage act of Defendant B, the Plaintiff received KRW 9,50,000,000 from E after deducting the overdue rent of KRW 50,000 from E, and terminated the lease of the instant real estate.

B. Whether a broker constitutes a single brokerage act is not determined by the broker’s subjective intent to mediate or mediate a transaction on behalf of the party to the transaction, but rather by whether the broker’s act is objectively deemed as an act of mediating or mediating a transaction in light of social norms.