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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent conducting real estate brokerage business under the trade name called D Licensed Real Estate Agent B and C in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. E and F concluded a sales contract on February 7, 2018 with respect to the land of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) via the Plaintiff.

C. On November 28, 2018, the Defendant submitted a written petition from E to the Plaintiff, and requested the Plaintiff to submit explanatory materials as to whether the Plaintiff properly performed the obligation to verify and explain the object of brokerage among the instant land. On November 29, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted a confirmation and explanatory note (No. 1-1-2) and a certified copy of the register (No. 1-2-2) to the Defendant on November 29, 2018. At the time of February 7, 2018, the instant land was on a deposit basis, but there was no indication in the “rights other than ownership” column of the confirmation and explanatory statement of the object of brokerage, and there was no omission in the buyer’s signature or seal.

On December 16, 2018, the Plaintiff submitted an additional explanatory note for confirmation (No. 4) to the Defendant, stating the content of chonsegwon establishment in each “B” column of “B” column of “B” to the buyer.

E. The Defendant asserted that the sales contract for the instant land was concluded as of February 7, 2018 by designating E and F as a joint purchaser, and that the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage prepared at the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract did not state any matters relating to chonsegwon, and that there was no signature or seal from among the joint buyers, and that the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage submitted to the Defendant on December 16, 2018 was reissued to the Plaintiff after the Defendant’s visit room, and that the Plaintiff did not faithfully and correctly explain the legal relationship of the instant land before the completion of brokerage to E and F.