1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this case in this case are followed by “A evidence 16 No. 1,” and the second page 1, followed by “A evidence 16,” in the third page 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The Defendants, real estate brokers, argued to the effect that they had a duty of care to verify forgery of resident registration using the above service even if they received resident registration certificates from the person called E at the time, since January 203, 200, because they were provided to enable them to verify the authenticity of resident registration certificates through electronic government website or automatic response telephone, the above service alone cannot be seen as immediately confirming forgery of resident registration certificates if they forged only a photograph on the resident registration certificates presented by the person claiming E at the time, in that it is related to the resident registration number of the pertinent resident registration certificates and the date of their issuance. Thus, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendants violated their duty of care on the sole ground of the fact that the Defendants did not use the above service. The Defendants, at the time, stated “4.1 and 2 of evidence No. 17-2,” as the result of the order of taxation information submission on the current market entertainment report, and received the remainder of the pertinent business name from the date of the Plaintiff’s business (excluding the Plaintiff’s trade name and the Plaintiff’s “I” from the date of the instant contract No. 81).