손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 7.8 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from January 8, 2015 to June 17, 2015.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:
C On January 9, 2013, with respect to D 311-dong 204, Gwangju Metropolitan City Mine-gu (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the transaction value of KRW 88,00,000,000.
B. The Plaintiff, who is a credit service provider, is C: (a) KRW 17.68 million on January 9, 2013; and (b) the same year.
1. 25.2,2890,000 won, and the same year;
2. As of January 9, 2013, the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, obtained a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the instant apartment as “Lease C, E, lease deposit amounting to KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000,000,000,000)” prepared by the Defendant, as of January 9, 2013. On the 21st of the same month, the Defendant received a registration for the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with respect to the instant apartment from C, the maximum debt amounting to KRW 30,00,000,000 from C, the debtor, and the Plaintiff as the mortgagee.
C. By July 4, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 130,192,00 to C, and C, by January 3, 2014, partially repaid the loan to the Plaintiff until the same month, and as of January 23, 2014, the Plaintiff’s loan to C was KRW 60,968,931 (principal interest KRW 41,687,571, 360).
2. At the time when the Plaintiff’s assertion C borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff, the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, provided the lease contract of this case in a false manner, and believed that only the lease contract of 20 million won for the apartment of this case was based on the deposit money, and lent the amount of KRW 130 million in total to C as security the apartment of this case. The fact was that E entered into a lease contract with the deposit money of KRW 83 million for the apartment of this case and eventually, the Plaintiff was unable to recover the claim from the apartment of this case.
The defendant's act.