1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B is 5% per annum from March 3, 2017 to April 5, 2018; and

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was the owner of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government F land and the second floor detached housing thereof (hereinafter “instant housing”). Defendant D is a practicing licensed real estate agent who employs Defendant B and C as a broker assistant while operating the G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office (hereinafter “instant office”).

The defendant Association is a person who is obligated to compensate for the property damage suffered by the parties to a transaction by intention or negligence in performing real estate brokerage in accordance with a mutual aid contract with the defendant D who is a licensed real estate agent.

B. On May 2016, the Plaintiff requested the instant office operated by Defendant D to sell and purchase the instant house. At the time, the broker assistant who consulted the Plaintiff was the Defendant B.

C. Defendant B introduced the Plaintiff to the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government H building I (hereinafter “instant building”), and the instant building was operated as a commercial building for some residential purposes, and some of the building was operated as a house.

Meanwhile, while soliciting the Plaintiff to exchange the instant housing and the instant building, Defendant B requested the Plaintiff to lend KRW 12 million to the Plaintiff on the condition that the instant housing is settled at the time of sale or exchange, and the Plaintiff lent KRW 12 million to Defendant B around May 2, 2016.

On May 25, 2016, while the Plaintiff was present at the instant office by Defendant D, the Plaintiff entered the sales price of KRW 300 million between the joint purchaser J and K with respect to the instant housing, but the actual sales price of KRW 300 million was KRW 300 million. However, under the sales contract, the Plaintiff entered the sales price in KRW 320 million.

The sales contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant housing sales contract”) was concluded at the time of entering into a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sales contract”).

On the other hand, the housing sales contract of this case contains the defendant D as an intermediary, and the defendant D entered into the sales contract of this case, and issued the defendant Association to the plaintiff.