1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff invested KRW 50 million with the purchase fund of the access road site (D land; hereinafter “the access road site of this case”) in relation to the development project for the land in the Ssung city where Nonparty B was promoting, the Plaintiff sought to verify whether B actually purchased the access road site prior to the payment of the investment fund. As to this, B presented a real estate sales contract (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) signed and sealed by E, a licensed real estate agent, on June 3, 2010, for which the Plaintiff believed to have paid KRW 50 million with the investment fund.

However, the sales contract of this case was falsely prepared by E, and in fact B did not actually purchase the land for the access road of this case.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages of the above KRW 50 million, and this constitutes a case where E causes damages to the Plaintiff in the course of acting as a broker, and thus, the Defendant, who is a mutual aid business entity of E, is obliged to pay the above KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 5, although Eul, a licensed real estate agent, purchased the access road site of this case from F, the owner of the access road of this case, or arranged it, it is acknowledged that Eul, upon request by Eul, prepared a sales contract for real estate of this case, and signed and sealed it as a broker in the broker column.

However, if the above purchase itself is false, it cannot be deemed that there was a brokerage act of E, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion premiseding that E would inflict damage on the plaintiff in the course of acting as a broker is without merit without any further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.