1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8:

On April 6, 2012, under the brokerage of Defendant B, a licensed real estate agent, the Plaintiff agreed to lease KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, and the lease period between April 17, 2012 and April 16, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the lessor C on April 12, 2012.

B. On the other hand, in the auction procedure of real estate rent in progress to the Changwon District Court F upon the application of the Masan Fisheries Cooperatives, the mortgagee of the instant officetel, the Changwon District Court (hereinafter “Masan Fisheries Cooperatives”), the Changwon District Court, as the person entitled to deliver the relevant tax, was paid dividends in the second order as the person entitled to deliver the said tax, and Msan Fisheries Cooperatives received dividends in the third order as the applicant creditor, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the distribution procedure without making a demand for distribution.

C. The Defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) concluded a mutual aid agreement with Defendant B with a mutual aid association established to guarantee the liability for damages of licensed real estate agents.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the market price of the instant officetel was equivalent to KRW 350 million to KRW 380 million. On the other hand, as to the instant officetel, the right to collateral security was established in the name of the Jinin Savings Bank Co., Ltd., the maximum debt amount of KRW 385 million in the future. Thus, Defendant B could have sufficiently predicted that it would be difficult to recover the deposit if the auction procedure is in progress with respect to the instant officetel, but without notifying the Plaintiff of such circumstance, caused the Plaintiff to be unable to recover the deposit due to the mistake of acting as a broker for the instant lease without having notified the Plaintiff of the fact.