1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the second 3rd 3rd 3rd 17th 17th 17th 2nd 2nd 17th 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 17st 17th 17th 2nd 19th 2nd 8st 8th 8st 8th 10th 2nd 10th 2nd 10th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd

2. Additional determination

A. Although the defendant and the co-defendant C of the first instance trial act as a broker for the instant lease contract, the defendant received a brokerage request from the lessor D, and the plaintiff made a brokerage request to C and paid a brokerage commission to C, so the defendant asserts that even if the defendant did not bear the duty of care as a broker or bears the duty of care, the degree of the duty of care should be mitigated.

However, as long as the Defendant jointly mediated the instant lease agreement, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff bears the fiduciary duty as the agent of brokerage. The mere fact that the Plaintiff paid brokerage fees only to C does not necessarily mean that the Defendant’s fiduciary duty is exempted or mitigated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da71484, Feb. 5, 2002). The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant is the tenant N and 201 tenant N and 201 tenantO. At the auction procedure, N is the most tenant, and the amount of KRW 25 million was distributed to N, 150,000,000 to P, and the amount of dividends of KRW 72,061,60,000 against N andO was reduced to KRW 72,00,000,000,000,000,000 won for lease, and P is finally decided to recommend settlement with the content that the amount of dividends of P is increased to KRW 24,061,60,000,000,000. The plaintiff is the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case.