1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Defendant C upon the Plaintiff’s ancillary claim added by this Court.
1. Judgment on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On April 5, 2015, as the broker of Defendant B, the Plaintiff is the broker of Defendant C from Defendant C, Seo-gu and 533 of the Etel on four parcels (hereinafter “instant officetel”).
The instant officetel purchased KRW 40,00,000. However, at that time, the instant officetel had already been sold to another person. The Defendants sold the right of sale double selling in collusion to the Plaintiff. In addition, Defendant B sold the instant officetel owned in the name of the Defendant C to not less than 29 persons despite the prohibition of resale of not less than two persons and mediation thereof prior to the date of approval for use pursuant to the Act on the Sale of Buildings, and violated the said Act. Meanwhile, Defendant C, even with the knowledge that Defendant B would engage in the resale as above, was liable for tort of Defendant B by providing its financial account to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff caused damage to KRW 40,000,000, and the Defendants were liable to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff.2) The Defendants did not have sold the instant officetel to the Plaintiff.
Defendant B, jointly with the Plaintiff, purchased at KRW 40,00,00 per heading room of Etel from FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant executor”). The instant officetel is the Plaintiff’s share among officetels purchased at that time.
Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.
B. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1-1 as to whether the plaintiff sold the instant officetel's sales right from defendant C, it is recognized that the instant executor stated the sales contract of the instant officetel as the seller and the plaintiff as the buyer.
However, Gap evidence No. 4, the appraiser G's appraisal results and arguments.