1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 2018, the Plaintiff requested Defendant B, a licensed real estate agent, to sell D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff.

B. On August 29, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a provisional contract with F and F requesting Defendant C to purchase the instant real estate at KRW 374,000,000,000, and received KRW 3,000 from F as a provisional contract deposit on the same day.

C. After that, between F and F on September 11, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the following terms: (a) KRW 374,000,000 for the instant real estate; (b) KRW 40,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 20,000 on the date of the contract; and (c) the intermediate payment of KRW 314,000 for the remainder payment of KRW 314,00,000 on November 20 of the same year; and (d) the sales contract with the Plaintiff to pay each of the instant real estate on January 29, 2019 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the market price of the instant real estate was increased by KRW 60,00,000 from August 26, 2018 upon the Plaintiff’s request for sale and KRW 60,000 from August 17, 2018, which led to the rise of KRW 430,000,000 around September 11, 2018. Such a rise in the market price constitutes a very rare case in the real estate transaction.

Nevertheless, the Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff that the real estate price sharply increased as above, and caused the elderly Plaintiff to have sold the instant real estate at the lower price of KRW 60,000,000 than the market price by causing an error in the purchase price. Such acts by the Defendants constitute an act of causing an error in the purchase price, which constitutes an act of causing an error in the transaction of the object prohibited under Article 681 of the Civil Act and Article 33 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, by means of false words and other methods.

Therefore, the defendants are the date of concluding the contract of this case, which is the losses suffered by the plaintiff due to illegal act of brokerage.