1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is to be cited in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, since the court of first instance additionally determined as to the allegations emphasized by the Defendants in this court as described in paragraph (2) below, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal as described in paragraph (3). Thus

(However, the part on the defendant E, G, H, and I Association of the plaintiff A, C, and D, which was separated, is excluded from the part on which the decision was made); 2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is that, at the time of the instant lease agreement, Defendant F notified the Plaintiff of a lease agreement of KRW 350,000,000 in total, the maximum debt amount of KRW 564,000 with respect to the instant housing in the name of P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “P”), which was created regarding the instant housing, and the deposit amount of KRW 350,000,000, which was concluded regarding the instant housing units and other units of the instant housing, and thus, Defendant F cannot be deemed to have inflicted property damage on the Plaintiff in breach of its duty of care in mediating the instant housing units and units until the time of conclusion of the instant lease agreement.

B. Determination 1) 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 is obligated to investigate and confirm the legal relationship, etc. of the object of brokerage and explain it to the client (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da69654, Nov. 29, 2012; 2013Da14903, Jun. 28, 2013). In cases where a real estate broker provides false information about material to determine whether to conclude a contract with the client, he/she is liable for damages to the client (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da42836, Sept. 25, 2008).