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 this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the following portions, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Sub-section 6, 7, 7, and 4 below, of the first instance judgment, the part related to the use of the store of this case is as follows.

(A) At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the purpose of the agreement was “educational and research facilities (private teaching institutes)” in the building ledger of the instant store. However, the statement prepared by the Defendants stated the use of the building ledger of the instant store as “refinites” and the actual purpose of the agreement is as seen earlier. (B) However, the evidence No. 6, No. 3-1 through No. 4 of the evidence No. 3, the witness testimony of the first instance court, the witness testimony of the first instance court, the first instance court, the first instance court, and the first instance court, the first instance court, and the first instance court, and the first instance court, in light of the following facts and circumstances, the Defendants violated the duty to verify and explain the object of brokerage only based on the facts and evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

The violation of the duty to explain and the plaintiff's delay in the opening of the plaintiff's medical center are not considered to have a proximate causal relationship, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① Before entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff confirmed the site of the Defendants, the director of the managing office of the lessor, and the store of this case. During that process, the Plaintiff was already aware of the fact that the store of this case was being used as a private teaching institute, and such circumstance was consistent with the purpose of the building ledger at the time.

② H, a lessor’s agent, stated that “When visiting the site of the instant store, the head of the management office stated the matters on the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s side and the change of use.”