1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 6, 2012, under the brokerage of Defendant B, a licensed real estate agent, the Plaintiff agreed to lease KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, and the lease period from April 17, 2012 to April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the lessor C a deposit of KRW 2903,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to the lessor on April 12, 2012.

B. On the other hand, in the auction procedure of real estate rent in progress to the Changwon District Court F upon the application of the Masan Fisheries Cooperatives, the mortgagee of the instant officetel, the Changwon District Court (hereinafter “Masan Fisheries Cooperatives”), the Changwon District Court, as the person entitled to deliver the relevant tax, was paid dividends in the second order as the person entitled to deliver the said tax, and Msan Fisheries Cooperatives received dividends in the third order as the applicant creditor, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the distribution procedure without making a demand for distribution.

The amount to be distributed to the Plaintiff did not remain. C.

The defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association concluded a mutual aid agreement with defendant B with the mutual aid association established to guarantee the liability of licensed real estate agents for damages.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, and purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The market price of the instant officetel at the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the instant lease agreement is equivalent to KRW 350 million or KRW 380 million. On the other hand, with respect to the instant officetel, the maximum debt amount of KRW 385 million was set up in the name of the Jin Savings Bank Co., Ltd., in the future, and thus, Defendant B could have sufficiently predicted that it would be difficult to recover the deposit if the auction procedure based on the right to collateral security was conducted with respect to the instant officetel, but without notifying the Plaintiff of such circumstance, caused the Plaintiff’s fault in acting as a broker for the instant lease agreement, thereby resulting in the Plaintiff’s failure to recover the deposit. Accordingly, the Defendants are jointly and severally.