1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. On July 6, 2013, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a sales contract for D Building No. 602 (hereinafter “instant loan”) with the Defendant’s recommendation that runs real estate brokerage business under the name of “C” (hereinafter “C”).

At the time, the Defendant introduced that the Plaintiff directly constructed the instant loan by using good materials. However, there were defects, such as rain in the river tent and the floor ceiling, and smelling in the toilet sewage hole, and the Plaintiff rejected the contract termination completely without complying with the request of the Defendant for repair of defects.

As such, the Plaintiff purchased the instant loan, which belongs to the Defendant, and accordingly, sought payment of the defect repair cost of KRW 7 million, building appraisal cost of KRW 3.3 million, indoor repair cost of KRW 2 million, brokerage fee of KRW 8.8 million, future director cost of KRW 1 million, acquisition tax of KRW 6.6 million, and mental compensation cost of KRW 10 million.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the description of No. 1 and 3 evidence, and the purport of the witness E’s testimony and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff confirmed the internal conditions of the loan of this case prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and “3. The instant sales contract is subject to the present condition of the goods (such as the condition of facilities), and the seller bears the responsibility for the defect by the date of delivery of the object.

‘The fact that the phrase is written' can be recognized.

In light of these facts, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant, despite the allegations and defects made by the Plaintiff in the loan of this case, was acting as an intermediary for the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff, even though the testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and witness E was insufficient. In addition, the Defendant did not fulfill its duty and responsibility as a licensed real estate agent.