1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a practicing licensed real estate agent operating the “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office,” and D is a brokerage assistant of the said “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.”

B. On August 11, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with E and F (hereinafter referred to as “E, etc.”) under which the lease deposit amount of H is KRW 140 million among the apartment houses of the first and second floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ground G ground (hereinafter “instant apartment house”) and the apartment houses of the second floor of the ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment house”) and the lease period is set from September 21, 2016 to September 21, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”), and paid KRW 14 million to E, etc. on the same day as the down payment.

C. The Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of KRW 126 million until September 22, 2016, which is the remainder payment date stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and E, etc. confiscated the down payment amount of KRW 14 million paid by the Plaintiff on the grounds of the remainder payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion through D, only explained the details of establishing the right to the instant multi-family house to the Plaintiff via a brokerage assistant, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.44 billion, and did not explain the existence of other lessees or the amount of the lease deposit, etc., and did not state all the details of the “the right to the object that has not been actually related to the right or publicly notified” in the description verifying the object of brokerage. However, if the sum of the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.440 million and the sum of the lease deposit deposits of senior lessees exceeds KRW 90 million, the total debt amount is KRW 2.3 billion, which is 2 billion, due to the fact that the transaction value of the instant multi-family house exceeds KRW 2.0 billion on the register of the instant multi-family house, and eventually, the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the deposit because it is difficult to recover the lease deposit, thereby making it difficult to confiscate the down payment to the Plaintiff.