1. The Plaintiff’s main claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant and the Defendant’s counterclaim are all filed.

The plaintiff is the owner of the land and the building on the ground (hereinafter referred to as the "each of the real estate in this case"), the defendant B is a licensed real estate agent who runs the real estate brokerage business under the trade name of the "E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office", and the defendant C is the broker assistant of the defendant B.

On March 1, 2015, the Plaintiff, as a broker of the Defendants, concluded a sales contract with F and each of the instant real estate amounting to KRW 1.11 billion, and entered into a sales contract with a down payment of KRW 50 million on the day of the contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid the down payment to F on the same day.

At the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed to KRW 9.9 million, which is 0.9% of the sales price, as an intermediary fee.

On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff first paid KRW 20 million to F and the Plaintiff, upon cancelling the agreement on the instant sales contract with F and the Plaintiff on the grounds that the transfer income tax has been imposed more than the expected amount, and receiving a refund of the down payment and paying penalty of KRW 40 million.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, Eul testimony of witness G, and fact-finding on the Daegu Metropolitan City of the court of this case, the plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff would sell each of the real estate of this case to defendant C and purchase other real estate, and if the transfer income tax is imposed a large amount of transfer income tax, the plaintiff could not purchase other real estate. Thus, the transfer income tax of this case was generated to a certain extent. The plaintiff signed the sales contract of this case on the ground that the defendant C was trusted that the amount of KRW 2 to 30 million was exceeded, but the plaintiff knew that the actual amount of KRW 80 million was exceeded.

As can be seen, Defendant C informed the Plaintiff of false information on capital gains tax, and the Defendants are provided with the duty of explanation by means of false speech and behavior regarding the important matters in the transaction, Article 25 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act, and Article 25