1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The Plaintiff’s portion of revocation is against the Defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is the representative of “C” as a real estate broker, and is jointly operating the said real estate office with D, and the Defendant Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with Defendant B.

B. Around September 2013, the Plaintiff asked C of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Officetel (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) on an wire basis, and then asked C with F, an employee of C, to the effect that “The market price for the loan of the lease on a deposit basis is sufficient to rent the instant officetel,” and F, to the effect that “The sale price is KRW 430 million, the sale price of which is KRW 430 million, the maximum debt amount is KRW 130 million,” and thereafter, the Plaintiff said D, “The market price of the instant officetel is KRW 430,000,000,000.”

C. The Plaintiff visited Han Bank on the same day and asked the Plaintiff of the available limit of KRW 120 million with respect to the loan of the instant officetel’s loan. At that time, the Plaintiff’s employees at the time directed the Plaintiff that the loan can be made on the basis of “income of KRW 80 million, market price of KRW 430 million,” but the accurate amount of the loan can be determined after checking the appraisal value of the appraisal corporation and prior determination of priority.

On September 23, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with G and the instant officetel 401 with a deposit of KRW 230 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and paid KRW 5 million, which is a part of the down payment.

E. On September 27, 2013, the Plaintiff changed the object of the instant lease agreement with G to the instant officetel 701 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and paid the remainder down payment of KRW 6.5 million.

F. On October 2, 2013, the Plaintiff visited Han Bank to obtain a loan for lease on a deposit basis. On three days thereafter, the Han Bank’s side raises objection to the Plaintiff.