1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the part of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On September 12, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to sell the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment 103 1101 dong 1101 to C with the purchase price of KRW 380 million and received KRW 40 million as the down payment.

B. On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff and C drafted a written agreement containing the purport that “an amount of KRW 330 million out of KRW 340,000,000,000,000 shall be paid on October 15, 2013, and the remaining purchase price of KRW 10,000,000 shall be paid at the same time as receiving an order from the Plaintiff on December 16, 2013.”

C. The defendant, as a licensed real estate agent, has arranged the above sales contract and participated in the preparation of the above agreement, and C is the defendant's wife.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, 2, Evidence No. 17-1, 2, and Evidence No. 18, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, while acting as a broker of the above sales contract, the Plaintiff attempted to conceal the fact that C is one’s wife, in collusion with C, to unfairly cut the sales price, and to have the remainder KRW 10 million cut, the Plaintiff should compensate for the Plaintiff’s damages incurred therefrom.

B. A licensed real estate agent may act as a broker for a person in a relative relationship, and there is no ground to deem that he/she has an obligation to notify the other party of his/her relative relationship with the other party while acting as a broker.

The Defendant, while mediating the conclusion of the above sales contract, did not notify the Plaintiff that he was the buyer’s wife, and thus, cannot be deemed to constitute a tort. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to deem that the Defendant had reduced the sales price unfairly in collusion with C.

It is not sufficient to recognize that a person was trying to compromise the balance of KRW 10,000,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed without a reasonable ground for determining the scope of damages. The judgment of the court of first instance is this.