1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim).

purport, purport, and.

1. The court of first instance dismissed both the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim. Since only the plaintiff appealed on the principal lawsuit, the scope of the court's judgment is limited to the part of the principal lawsuit among the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. On August 1, 2014, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement between Nonparty C and Nonparty C on a deposit basis with the lease deposit amount of KRW 230 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the remainder payment of KRW 40,000,000,000 on the date of the contract, and the remainder payment of KRW 140,000,00,000,000,000,000 is to be paid as of September 22, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

3. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is entitled to pay 690,000 won and damages for delay arising from the mediation of the lease agreement of this case.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not have any obligation to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim, on the ground that the Defendant suffered damages due to the Plaintiff’s error in the terms of the Plaintiff’s lease contract brokerage.

4. In full view of the respective statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the defendant requested the plaintiff to lease the apartment of this case with a lease deposit of KRW 240 million around July 2014, and ② the plaintiff notified the defendant that he would rent the apartment of this case with a lease deposit of KRW 240 million from the husband of the non-party E around July 2, 2014, and first transferred the apartment of KRW 10 million to the defendant as a provisional contract deposit for the execution of the lease contract (However, the defendant was unaware of the amount of the provisional contract deposit amount of KRW 10 million from the plaintiff's money) and ③.