1. The part concerning Defendant E and F in the judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant E and F shall each make the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant E and F

A. Facts of recognition 1) Defendant E is a licensed real estate agent, and Defendant F is a H Area Housing Association (hereinafter “instant association”).

(i)a new apartment construction project implemented by the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government JJ (hereinafter referred to as “instant project”);

I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “I”) as an executing agent.

(2) The project of this case was not approved by the competent authority on April 11, 2008, and it was not clear when and how the project will progress. The existence of the right to sell apartment units through the project was not certain.

3) On April 11, 2008, Defendant F made a false statement to the effect that, although the instant association did not have the intent or ability to sell an apartment newly built by the instant association to the Plaintiff, Defendant E, through Defendant E, “The sales price of H regional housing association is KRW 561,240,00,00, and will be sold in lots to the executory agency. It may be sold within six months if it pays KRW 172,124,000 under the pretext of down payment, etc., and can be sold in lots according to the sales contract.” 4) The Plaintiff believed the above false statement as a fact, and concluded the instant association subscription agreement including the content that the Plaintiff would purchase one apartment bond to be newly constructed by the instant project through Defendant E, and paid KRW 172,124,000 in total under the pretext of down payment and brokerage commission.

5) Meanwhile, even if Defendant F received money from the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the above partnership joining agreement, he knew that Defendant E had no intent or ability to sell to the Plaintiff one of the apartment bonds to be newly constructed through the instant business. However, Defendant E mediated the Plaintiff’s above partnership joining agreement [based on recognition] Articles 150(1) (Defendant F) and 150(3) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da53775, Jan. 30, 2009).

B. Determination 1.