1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs of appeal shall be individually considered.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it refers to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is.

The main point of the parties’ assertion is that the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, who arranged the Plaintiff’s transfer contract, is extended by 100% even if the period of free use of the instant commercial building expires on May 5, 2016 and is no longer extended, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff to engage in false speech or behavior concerning the duration of the right to occupy and use the instant commercial building, or making the Plaintiff’s decision, thereby committing a tort in violation of the obligations of the licensed real estate agent under Articles 33 subparag. 4 and 25(1)1 and 25(2) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act.

Even if the Defendant did not violate the obligations under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act

Even if the defendant was delegated with the management of affairs concerning the brokerage of the transfer contract of this case, he committed an illegal act in violation of the duty of good faith as above.

Therefore, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages incurred to the Plaintiff, which is equivalent to the acquisition price of the instant case, KRW 237 million.

(4) However, the Plaintiff’s right to occupy and use the instant store is not included in the scope of the object of brokerage as provided by Article 3 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, and thus, the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act is not applicable to the brokerage of the instant transfer contract.

The defendant notified and explained that the duration of the right to occupy and use the store of this case is 20 years to the plaintiff, and normally, it did not explain that the extension of the duration of the right to occupy and use the store of this case was 10% guaranteed in the case of the right to occupy and use the store of this case. The plaintiff collected and examined various information by himself.