1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant purchased the D Building in Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter “D Building”), and the Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent who requested purchase of D Building from the Defendant’s husband E, and the Plaintiff B is a licensed real estate agent who requested sale of D Building from F, the seller of D Building.

B. On July 12, 2016, E requested Plaintiff A to purchase commercial buildings, the market price of which is approximately KRW 800 million and KRW 1.7 billion.

Plaintiff

A directed D Building on August 20, 2016 to E and the Defendant, while delivering to E a document stating the present condition and lease status of D Building, the sale price presented at that time was KRW 2 billion.

C. For the purpose of raising 300 million won which is insufficient to purchase the D building with the help of the Plaintiff A, E sought a loan from the Plaintiff, and requested the Plaintiff to adjust the sales price of KRW 1,950,000,000. On August 27, 2016, E’s response from the Plaintiff that the seller would not sell the price was suspended from the purchase of the D building through the Plaintiff.

After that, E and the Defendant concluded a sales contract on August 31, 2016 between H and F (seller) for the purchase of D building in KRW 1,950,000,000 through H, which operated G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, and on August 31, 2016, between F (seller) and the Defendant for the purchase of D building in KRW 1,95,00,000.

On September 29, 2016, the Defendant paid 11,000,000 won to H as a commission for the said brokerage.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 14, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The alleged plaintiffs, with the efforts of the plaintiff A, identified the sale price of the D building, the terms of lease (the deposit and monthly rent) and the amount of loan available, and confirmed the site. By doing so in violation of the principle of trust and good faith, the defendant made transactions through H without excluding the plaintiffs.