1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 19, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Ansan-si, with the content that: (a) the lease deposit was KRW 30 million; (b) the monthly rent was KRW 2 million; and (c) the period from April 9, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Defendant, a licensed real estate agent operating the “E”, received KRW 300,000 from the above C with ordinary friendship and drafted a contract for the instant lease agreement.

C. The broker column of the instant lease agreement includes the location, name, registration number, telephone number, etc. of the office operated by the defendant and the signature and seal of the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Whether there is an access road to the Plaintiff, who wishes to operate clothes in the instant building asserted by the Plaintiff, is an essential factor to consider whether a lease contract is concluded.

However, at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff failed to hear the explanation that the main access road to the instant building was illegally installed from the Defendant.

In addition, the access road was closed on the ground that it was illegal after the conclusion of the instant lease contract.

In other words, the defendant, who has mediated the conclusion of the instant lease contract, neglected to explain whether the access road was legitimate in addition to relevant documents, despite the duty to verify the state, location, and relationship of the object of brokerage, and explain it to the plaintiff who is the client. If the above access road was to be aware of the illegal circumstances, the plaintiff did not conclude the instant lease contract. Accordingly, pursuant to Article 30 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, the defendant shall compensate the plaintiff for damages of KRW 104,469,00 in total (= KRW 91,469,000 in total).