손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasons for the admitting this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the 5th to 10th to 4th to 10th to the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance
2. The following circumstances are that the Plaintiff, as a party to a contract, concluded the instant lease agreement without properly verifying the current status of the leased object by demanding the lessor to furnish data, etc. Even if it is necessary to verify the current status of the leased object as a party to the contract, and the change in the current status and indication on the public record of the instant real estate is not a shaking transaction. The indication on the instant real estate and the public record of the instant real estate is referred to as the form and structure, and the difference in the current status and public record from the previous owner is not easy to find such difference. As the Defendant B, a broker, could not have easily discovered such difference in the current status and public record, while residing in the real estate of this case for a considerable period of time, the Plaintiff could not find any difference with the indication on the public record. If the Plaintiff discovered the instant real estate before the registration of the decision on commencing auction, it appears that the Plaintiff would have been liable for damages by newly satisfying the requirements of a new auction or cancelling the instant lease agreement of this case through the general settlement recommendation of 200% of damages.
Therefore, Defendant B as damages.