1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Plaintiff’s assertion

The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is a single investor of the investment trust of this case and is the actual party to the sales contract of this case.

A, who is the employee of the Defendant, could not transfer the right to implement the project of DNA Construction to the Plaintiff, and immediately cancel the above right to implement the project, and even with the knowledge that the Plaintiff could not acquire the new right to implement the project, A, who is the employee of the Defendant, committed a tort of deceiving the Plaintiff to enter into the sales contract of this case, as if the transfer of the right to implement the project of DNA Construction, revocation immediately,

In addition, even if A did not actively induce the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was found to be not in violation of the duty of disclosure by recommending the Plaintiff to enter into the instant sales contract with the knowledge of the fact that the Plaintiff was erroneous, even though A was aware of the fact that the transfer of the right to implement the instant project and the immediate cancellation thereof, and that it was possible to acquire the Plaintiff’s new right to implement the project in the process of introducing the instant land from D.

The plaintiff did not pay the balance of the sales contract of this case due to the above illegal act, and thereby suffered loss from forfeiture of the down payment from one asset trust as a penalty, and the defendant is liable for the damages of the plaintiff as the employer of A.

Judgment

The reasons for this part are as follows: (a) the court has used "exploiting the revocation of the license" in Section 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "exploiting the official document requesting the revocation of the license" and (b) Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following cases: (b) from Section 8 to Section 9:

Since it is the same as the statement in the port, it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.