1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendants are the defendants.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to the instant case is as follows, except for the addition or modification of the pertinent part as follows, and therefore, it is identical to the part against the Defendants among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, it refers to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4. Sheet 4.

The parts of the subsection are as follows:

The Plaintiff, “The Plaintiff,” by deceiving the Plaintiff by participating in, implied, or aiding and abetting the act of taking part in, or aiding and abetting Codefendant B of the first instance trial, Defendant C is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages or return of unjust enrichment with respect to the amount equivalent to the instant amount as a joint tortfeasor. Even if not, Defendant C is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages due to negligence not verifying the authenticity of the loan, which is a security, as the intermediary credit service provider, and thus, Defendant C is liable for compensating the Plaintiff.”

B. On the 4th 20th 20th b. The following is added to the monthly rent contract: “The co-defendant B of the first instance trial confirmed at the same office Dongtan-si on the basis of the monthly rent contract.”

C. In addition to the five pages 1 portion, “In the absence of any circumstance to deem that the monthly rent contract was forged as above, it is difficult to deem that Defendant C was negligent in performing duties as an intermediary credit service provider for failure to inquire into the date of the move-in report by directly inquiring the residents' self-governing center of the fixed date or by being issued a certified copy of resident registration.”

6.0 7.0

The parts of the subsection are as follows:

In light of the facts and circumstances of the above recognition, only the evidence of the plaintiff's assertion or submission is sufficient to obtain the money of this case by deceiving the plaintiff jointly with the co-defendant B of the first instance trial by jointly inducing the plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize that a credit service provider has violated its duty of care as an intermediary credit service provider, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.