1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who entered into a lease agreement as seen below as the mediation of Defendant C.

Defendant B is a licensed real estate agent operating the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, and Defendant C is a brokerage assistant of the above office.

The Defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) concluded a mutual aid agreement between Defendant B and its affiliated licensed real estate agents for mutual aid on December 17, 2014, which stipulates that “In order to guarantee the compensation for property damage incurred to the parties to a transaction by acting as a broker between Defendant B and its assistant, the mutual aid agreement between Defendant B and the parties to the transaction shall be concluded from December 17, 2014 to December 16, 2015.”

B. On April 24, 2015, the Plaintiff, including the instant lease agreement, leased the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Underground 2 (hereinafter “instant housing”) KRW 120 million as the lease deposit and the lease term from May 15, 2015 to May 14, 2017.

The above lease contract was mediated by Defendant C, and the defendant C signed and sealed the "B" column in the letter of confirmation of object of brokerage and the lease contract.

Defendant B was not involved in the instant lease brokerage.

Defendant C received a summary order of KRW 1 million on the grounds of criminal facts constituting a violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act by providing brokerage services using the name of Defendant B, a licensed real estate agent, and KRW 2 million on the ground that Defendant C violated the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act by allowing Defendant C to render brokerage services using his/her name, and that Defendant C violated the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.

(Seoul Central District Court 2016 High Court 2016. [Reasons for Recognition] / [Ground for Recognition] , each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8 through 11, 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely an intermediary assistant, not a licensed real estate agent, and thus, the Plaintiff did so despite the absence of an explanation regarding the instant house. Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s assertion was erroneous in performing the instant house.