1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff Company entered into a sales contract with the Defendant of a licensed real estate agent, which purchased the instant real estate in the purchase price of KRW 510,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) for the three-story neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant neighborhood living facilities”) of the 362 square meters wide and its ground reinforced concrete structure, which are owned by the Defendant of a licensed real estate agent, for the purchase price of KRW 510,00,00,000 (hereinafter “instant building”). On October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff Company completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff Company.

B. At the time of the instant sales contract, the use of the real estate register and the building register for each floor of the instant building is as follows, but the actual status changes as follows.

Multi-user houses of multi-user houses in three-story multi-family living facilities of the first floor neighborhood living facilities (general restaurants), multi-family housing facilities of the second floor, multi-family housing in the actual status of buildings on the register of the building in the register of the floors;

C. On June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a corrective order to voluntarily remove the instant building by July 10, 2015, in violation of Article 19 (Change of Use) of the Building Act, stating that the first floor of the instant building was a multi-user house in neighborhood living facilities, and that the third floor of the instant building changed to a multi-user house in the office.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's 1, 2, 3 (including additional numbers), Eul's 6, Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although the first and third floors of the building of this case alleged by the plaintiff 1, the defendant did not explain to the plaintiff that the use was unlawfully changed, although the first and third floors of the building of this case were unlawfully changed.

The defendant's act constitutes an intermediary negligence in violation of the duty to confirm and explain the object of brokerage, and the defendant suffered the plaintiff pursuant to Article 30 (1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.