1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the costs of KRW 48,00,000 for Defendant A, B, and C respectively, and KRW 87,060,00 for Plaintiff D and each of the above costs.

1. As to this part of the basic facts, “the judgment on the claim against Defendant E” in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The part of "recognition" is cited.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in the management of Defendant E, a licensed real estate agent, purchased each right to sell the Plaintiff’s H apartment complex in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant apartment complex”) through the brokerage of Defendant E, and remitted the down payment to the KK account, a seller’s agent. After that, it was revealed that K had concluded each of the above sales rights by deceiving the Plaintiffs without any authority to act for the sellers holding the above right to sell.

With respect to Defendant E, the Plaintiffs seek damages equivalent to the amount paid by the Plaintiffs as contract deposit under tort liability (violation of Article 30 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act) in collusion with the selling agent K, or tort liability (violation of Article 30 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act) which misleads the Plaintiffs, and seek for payment of insurance money under an authorized and permitted guarantee insurance contract concluded with Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”) with Defendant E.

B. Defendant E’s assertion 1) In light of the following: (a) Defendant E prepared a sales contract for each of the above sales rights with the Plaintiffs as K employee; (b) Defendant E’s disturbance in each of the above sales contracts; and (c) Defendant E did not deliver a separate certificate of mutual aid to the Plaintiffs; and (d) did not receive brokerage commission from the Plaintiffs, Defendant E does not engage in brokerage as a licensed real estate agent.

B. Defendant E mediated the purchase of the plaintiffs' right to sell shares.

Even if the defendant E fulfilled the duty of care required as a licensed real estate agent, and there was no negligence in the mediation act merely because the defendant E is the victim who was accused of S. The contract is concluded even if the defendant E's negligence is recognized.