1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the Seoul Construction Corporation is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 12, 201, the Plaintiff entered into an exchange contract with Defendant Hon Seoul Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Hon Seoul Construction”) on the third floor C (hereinafter “instant Lon”). The Plaintiff calculated the sale price of the instant Lon on the basis of KRW 190 million at the rate of KRW 1,00,000,000,000 for the right to return the lease deposit to the Defendant and KRW 50,000,000 for the key location of the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do , and the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the lease deposit deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000 for the instant Lon and KRW 20,000,000 for the repayment of the lease deposit of the instant Lon to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant exchange contract”). At the time of the instant exchange contract, the Seoul Construction concluded the instant exchange contract as a seller as an individual at the same time among the instant exchange contracts.

B. At the time of the instant exchange contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Ha Seoul Construction agreed to the effect that “This contract is completed after fully reviewing the documents and both goods on official duty as required by both parties, and thus the Plaintiff and the Defendant Ha Seoul Construction made an agreement that “I cannot raise any objection (including a broker) for the following or for any reason.”

C. Defendant B mediated the instant exchange contract on behalf of Defendant Hho Seoul Construction as an employee of Defendant Hho Seoul Construction, and concluded the instant exchange contract.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the Seoul Hahan Construction

A. As the lawsuit in this case, the Plaintiff sought damages from tort since the Plaintiff caused damages to the Plaintiff by acting as a broker in the course of the exchange contract of this case with respect to the Seoul Construction, which is the lawsuit in this case. ② Even if the status as a broker is not recognized, it is the seller of the loan in this case as the seller of this case.