1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

except that the following judgments shall be added:

2. We examine whether the Plaintiff suffered damages from the proceeds of sale of the building in this case due to the following reasons: (a) Defendant B did not state matters concerning the amount of lease deposit, timing and termination period, etc. of other tenants in the specifications confirming the object of brokerage; and (b) whether the Plaintiff suffered damages from the proceeds of sale of the building

In concluding the instant contract, the Plaintiff entered into a special agreement with the B/L, a lessor, to register the amount of the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security regarding the instant building as KRW 510 million. This would suggest that the Plaintiff would have calculated and considered the amount of his/her lease deposit in advance even if both the amount of the right to collateral security to be paid prior to the Plaintiff and the amount of the lease deposit of other lessees, if the registration of reduction was made, even if all the amount of the claim to be paid prior to the

And this shows that at least Defendant B, an individual, could have notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of the senior lessee's lease deposit.

In fact, on January 26, 201, 201, when the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract, the total amount of the deposit for lease of other tenants, who had been able to obtain preferential repayment with a fixed date prior to the Plaintiff’s prior to obtaining the fixed date prior to the conclusion of the instant contract, was excluded from the distribution schedule as the first lessee did not make a demand for distribution at all. The amount of KRW 30 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, which is the date of transfer, was the same as the date of the instant contract, and it appears difficult for the first lessee to recognize it as the date of the instant contract as the date of the instant contract. Accordingly, this case’s deposit is excluded).