Among the parts against Defendant B and those against Defendant C and D, the part against the Plaintiff is reversed, respectively.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. (1) In cases of Defendant B’s tort liability, where it is apparent in light of the empirical rule that the other party to a transaction would not have been notified of certain circumstances in the course of real estate transaction, it is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the principle of good faith. Once it is deemed that the facts subject to the duty of disclosure are subject to the duty of disclosure, there is no room to separately acknowledge the duty of notification to the person already known. However, the other party cannot be exempted from the duty of disclosure unless it is acknowledged by himself or it is exceptional

(2) The lower court determined that Defendant B cannot be held liable for tort on the ground that Defendant C’s failure to notify the Plaintiff of the construction permit and approval for use of the 205Da5812, Jun. 1, 2007, considering the following: (a) the lower court acknowledged that Defendant B did not notify the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff intended to purchase the instant building for the use of the 205da5812, Jun. 1, 2007; (b) the purpose of the 2005da5812, which the Plaintiff intended to purchase the instant building for the use of the 203th and the 3rd floor, was the office of the 203rd floor; (c) Defendant C, the broker, requested the buyer to notify the 200th and the third floor of the use of the building; and (d) Defendant C, the intermediary expert, was aware of all the circumstances related to the sale and purchase; and (d) Defendant C and the design drawings were also written in the office.

(3) However, the lower court’s determination is as follows.