1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Upon D’s recommendation on May 19, 2007, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 187,000,000,000, which was planned to be newly constructed between B and B, and the purchase price of KRW 201,00,000,000,000 for each purchase price of KRW 175,000,000 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant sales contract”), and the Defendant arranged the instant sales contract.

Each contract of the instant sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) specifies the subject matter to be sold as follows:

The number of houses No. 101-202, Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 101 (Regressive studio) for neighboring residents and multi-household No. 201 (Regressive studio) of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E.

B. On the ground of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the apartment building register was created on November 18, 2007 after building the five-story housing units of reinforced concrete building, the five-story apartment buildings of neighborhood living facilities, and the apartment building register was established on November 18, 2007. Of the above aggregate building, the use of the apartment building register was all recorded in the office.

(hereinafter referred to as "the instant real estate" in the aggregate of 101 and 201 among the above aggregate buildings.

On December 4, 2007, the Plaintiff completed each registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate.

Around October 2008, the Plaintiff received notification to correct the violation of the Building Act since it changed the use of the instant real estate to a house without permission. However, the Plaintiff did not correct it, which received a disposition imposing enforcement fines of KRW 19,400,280 in total from 2009 to 2013, and paid it.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul's whole purport of pleading

2. Although the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant and his brokerage assistant, have a duty to faithfully and accurately explain the object of brokerage, they use the real estate of this case, which is a neighborhood living facility, as a house.