손해배상(기)
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendants are 3,586,044 won and 30,646.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In full view of the following facts: (a) the occurrence of damages liability; (b) the facts as seen earlier, as indicated in the evidence No. 12-1 to 4; (c) the Plaintiff’s personal examination result; and (d) the overall purport of the pleadings as to the part of the Defendant C’s personal examination result, Defendant C introduced the instant auction goods to the Plaintiff; and (c) explain the difference in the yield based on the successful bid price; and (d) based on the premise that the entire amount of 17 households can be leased, it
If Defendant C intended to explain to the Plaintiff the fact that there exists an illegal building portion in the instant auction goods and that only 11 households could not lease the said illegal building portion upon the removal of the said illegal building, it is deemed that Defendant C did not prepare and deliver only an earning rate table premised on the fact that it is a normal building. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant C did not explain to the Plaintiff at the time that it did not explain the illegal building portion. contrary thereto, it is reasonable to deem that part of the result of Defendant C’s newspaper is not believed, and it is insufficient to reverse the said recognition solely on the basis of the written evidence No. 1 and evidence Nos. 2 and 4.
Therefore, Defendant C, as a consultant in charge of Defendant B, who entered into a consulting contract with the Plaintiff on real estate auction, has a duty to faithfully and accurately explain the current status and economic value of the auction goods, etc., and to present evidentiary materials, even though there is a duty to explain the existence of an illegal building and present evidentiary materials, only the lease profit premised on whether there is a risk of future removal is a normal building. The Plaintiff is not aware of illegal construction due to such nonperformance or tort, and is accurate about the current status and economic value of the auction goods.