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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendant to mediate a lease agreement on the building in the Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu Seoul Underground (hereinafter “instant commercial building”); (b) concluded a lease agreement with the lessor to lease the said building; and (c) paid KRW 2,00,000,000; and (d) due to the destruction of the said lease agreement on the instant commercial building, the Plaintiff suffered considerable damage to the said down payment.

Although the Defendant has a duty to verify the status of the object of brokerage pursuant to Article 25 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act and to explain such duty faithfully and correctly to the brokerage client, thereby incurring loss to the Plaintiff as above, the Defendant has a duty to compensate for the loss pursuant to Article 30 of the same Act.

Accordingly, the plaintiff claims 1,00,000 won as consolation money to the defendant.

B. According to Article 25(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act and Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a practicing licensed real estate agent is requested brokerage, he/she shall confirm, before the brokerage is completed, the state, location and relation of the object of brokerage, transaction or use restrictions under Acts and subordinate statutes, basic matters concerning the object of brokerage such as the type, location, area, use, purpose, structure and year of construction, and explain it faithfully and accurately to the broker who intends to acquire the right to the object

As to the instant case, on April 4, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff as to the instant commercial building at KRW 10,00,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 400,000. The fact that the Defendant arranged the said lease agreement is not a dispute between the parties, and the fact that fung has occurred at the location of the instant commercial building due to leakage, according to the respective entries in subparagraphs 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings and video and the arguments.

However, the plaintiff and the defendant.