The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the land of this case was purchased in order to move the plastic mixing plant he operated, unlike the judgment of the court below.

However, this is merely the purport of disputing the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which is a fact-finding court, and cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal.

Furthermore, even if examining the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the court below did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by violating the rules of evidence.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that B violated the duty of confirmation as a broker, on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to view that the Plaintiff expressed his intention to purchase land suitable for the use of plastic manufacturing place when requesting brokerage to B, who is the broker, and that a confirmation description of the object of brokerage affixed with the Plaintiff’s representative was prepared contrary to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the duty of licensed real estate agent to explain confirmation, or by misapprehending the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.