1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 3,962,50 on the Plaintiff and as a result, from September 26, 2017 to March 13, 2019.

1. Facts of background;

A. On November 8, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate in KRW 140,00,000 from D as a broker of Defendant B, a licensed real estate agent, for KRW 317 square meters, for a single floor of 14.08 square meters in the splate-gun E, Gyeonggi-do, and its ground, and for a single floor of 14.4 square meters in a single floor (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate” by combining the instant building sites and buildings).

On November 24, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the purchase price to D in full, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant real estate.

B. The instant real estate is located near the arable land, and there is no part adjacent to the road surrounded by another person’s land or farmland.

However, an access road (hereinafter “instant access road”) with a width of about 4-5 meters is established on the ground of 172 square meters and G 268 square meters (hereinafter “Adjoining land”), which is adjacent to the south-east of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff has access to the instant real estate through the access road under the actual implied consent of the owners.

C. Defendant B did not explain to the Plaintiff that the instant real estate cannot enter the Plaintiff without going through the adjoining land while mediating the sale and purchase of the instant real estate.

On the other hand, on October 5, 2016, Defendant B entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant C Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) within the scope of KRW 100,000,000, which compensates the client’s damages suffered from a brokerage accident from October 5, 2016 to October 4, 2017, which is the period of mutual aid (hereinafter “instant mutual aid agreement”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 5, 7, Eul 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Defendant B, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, in mediating the sale and purchase of the instant real estate, did not explain to the Plaintiff that the instant real estate was the franchise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is the franchise.