1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 10, 2015, the Plaintiff and Nonparty D entered into a sales contract with Nonparty E and F to purchase KRW 11,365,00,000 for multi-household housing located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “multi-household housing”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 17, 2015.

B. On April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Nonparty I to sell KRW 623,000,000 with respect to H apartment Nos. 114, 501 (hereinafter “H apartment”) owned by himself/herself, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 30, 2015.

C. On April 4, 2016, the Gangwon Tax Office imposed a tax assessment imposing and assessing capital gains tax of KRW 120,304,170 on the Plaintiff.

【In the absence of any dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. The Plaintiff asserted as a licensed real estate agent, without properly explaining the requirements imposed by the capital gains tax while mediating the purchase of the instant multi-household housing and the sale of H apartment, and the registration due to the purchase of multi-household housing was first made, and the registration due to the sale of H apartment was made subsequent to the registration, and thus, the Plaintiff became two housing owners per household and imposed capital gains tax.

In addition, despite the fact that the plaintiff becomes a temporary multi-household house in order to mediate the purchase of multi-household houses, capital gains tax was imposed by misunderstanding that it is not subject to capital gains tax because it falls under two houses for temporary one household, and making registration.

The Defendants, as licensed real estate agents, have breached their duty of good faith to act as a broker. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 120,304,170 of capital gains tax, and thus, the Defendants seek payment of the said amount and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendants are limited to brokerage related to the purchase of multi-household housing in the instant case.