The judgment below

Among them, the part against the plaintiff (the part concerning the claim for damages equivalent to the premium) is reversed, and this part of the case is applied.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The right to claim compensation for damages arising from tort or nonperformance is established when the actual damage occurred, and the issue of whether the damage actually occurred must be objectively and reasonably determined in light of social norms.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da28568, Apr. 24, 1998; 97Da4760, Aug. 25, 1998). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts or circumstances.

The Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement with the lessor F with respect to the instant store in order to conduct coffee sales business, and concluded the instant premium agreement with G as the former lessee, and paid KRW 5 million to G as premium.

B. Although the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, was well aware of the purpose of the Plaintiff’s above lease while mediating the instant lease agreement and the premium agreement, he did not properly explain that the Plaintiff is unable to obtain permission for restaurant business because the purification facility is not installed in the instant store.

C. The Plaintiff, with F and this case’s lease agreement, was rescinded with the knowledge of the foregoing problems late later, and filed a lawsuit against G seeking the return of the premium, thereby voluntarily adjusting the content that G and 2.7 million won should be paid.

Article 4 (3) of the Premium Agreement of this case provides that "where the instant lease contract does not normally proceed, the premium contract of this case is rescinded, and G stipulates that "the premium received shall be immediately refunded to the Plaintiff."

3. Examining the foregoing facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the following determination is possible.

If the Defendant fully performed its duty to explain that the Plaintiff is unable to obtain permission for restaurant business by making the instant store a place of business as its place of business, the Plaintiff did not conclude the instant premium contract or paid 5 million won premium.