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 reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for a supplementary determination as follows.

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant D is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of Defendant D’s failure to perform its duty as a real estate broker in breach of the duty of care and good faith under Article 681 of the Civil Act, such as notifying the Plaintiff of the fact that “No problem exists (including time)” with respect to the illegal transfer of the apartment in this case.

Since the legal relationship between a real estate broker and a client is similar to a delegation relationship under the Civil Act, a broker who receives a request for brokerage has a duty to investigate and confirm the legal relationship, etc. of the object of brokerage with the care of a good manager, and explain it to the client.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da69654 Decided November 29, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da14903 Decided June 28, 2013, etc.). However, evidence submitted, including evidence No. 5-2 and 3, etc. alone, Defendant D actively notified Defendant D of the fact that the instant apartment is an object of brokerage.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff suffered damage, and there is no evidence to prove that Defendant D violated the duty of care as a real estate broker.

Rather, the fact that the plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the knowledge of the fact that the fact of the illegal expansion of the apartment of this case was well known, such as the fact that the defendant D entered the confirmation description of the object of brokerage that the plaintiff delivered to the plaintiff as to whether the building was in violation of the building ledger. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not notify false facts as to the apartment complex of this case or explain the fact of imposing a charge for compelling compliance.