1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. After concluding a consulting contract with the Defendants for the acceptance of the medical care center, the Plaintiff: (a) believed the Defendants’ consulting; and (b) accepted the E-Medical Care Center located in both weeks (hereinafter “the medical care center in this case”); (c) incurred loss due to deception or breach of duty as set forth below by the Defendants (it is not clear that the cause of the claim is not clear; (d) made it an assertion of both liability for nonperformance and tort liability due to breach of duty of care under the brokerage contract; hereinafter referred to as “violation of duty”).

1. See the first and second arguments, see the record of pleading. 1) After completing the acceptance and acceptance of the Defendants’ consulting, there were too many defects in the building. 2) The medical care center incurred damages to the Plaintiff by making the seller’s deduction even though the Plaintiff paid the premium to the seller, while the medical care center was an important number of patients.

3) While the number of patients of a medical care center is 49, the Defendants believed the horses of the Defendants that it is possible to increase the number of patients, and accepted the medical care center, and as such, it was impossible to obtain permission exceeding 49 persons in the current facility condition. 4) The Defendants believed that the parking facility construction can be completed if the Defendants were to be completed, and accepted the medical care center’s construction cost of KRW 43 million. As such, the Defendants sought the return of KRW 23 million, which is the difference.

B. Defendants 1) Not only did the defect alleged by the Plaintiff be deemed a false or defective defect, but also it is a part of the fact that the Plaintiff had already been notified at the time of the contract and was already reflected in the calculation of the sales price by reducing the sales price at the Plaintiff’s request. 2) The discharge of the patient from the instant medical care center was merely based on the Plaintiff’s care in the operation of the Plaintiff and the seller’

It is not in the scope of the Defendants’ liability.

3 The building area of the instant medical center is 62 persons or actually.