1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid in addition to the following shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. From June 28, 2013, Defendant B entered into a mutual aid agreement with Defendant B to pay the mutual aid money in accordance with the terms and conditions of mutual aid, if Defendant B intentionally or negligently causes property damage to the parties to a transaction when it acts as a real estate broker in the course of brokering real estate. Defendant B entered into a mutual aid agreement to pay the mutual aid money in accordance with the mutual aid agreement, with Defendant B and the mutual aid amount of KRW 100,000,000, and the period of mutual aid from June 29, 2013 to June 28, 2014.

B. As to the G land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”), M (E) entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff, as if the F had been delegated the F with the authority to conclude a sales contract and to receive the price for the instant real estate, and as if he had been delegated the F with the authority to buy and sell the instant real estate, M (E) entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff and the instant real estate for KRW 660,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and acquired KRW 25,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s agricultural bank account under the name of the Defendant B to receive KRW 20,00,000 from the Plaintiff each on December 12, 2013, and acquired KRW 80,000 on December 5, 2013, and acquired KRW 700,000 from the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

C. On September 4, 2015, M was sentenced to four years of imprisonment and fine 1,00,000 won for a crime, such as “M, even though it did not have any intent or ability to intermediate the purchase of the instant real estate, by deceiving the Plaintiff and deceiving the Plaintiff,” in the case of fraud, such as Youngcheon District Court Youngcheon Branch Branching 2015Ma214, Sept. 4, 2015.”

【In the absence of a dispute over the basis of recognition, the entry of the evidence Nos. 8, 9-1, 2, and 19 in the evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings [the defendant is a defense that the document No. 1 (real estate sales contract), 3 (Dismissal of), and 7 (the receipt No. Ma), but it is a defense that the document No. 1 was forged by this M.