2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. One-half of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage Consulting”) is a corporation engaged in real estate consulting business, real estate brokerage business, etc. The Real Estate Brokerage Consulting Co., Ltd. concluded a mutual aid agreement (hereinafter “instant mutual aid agreement”) with the Defendant on October 15, 2012 with the term of mutual aid between October 15, 2012 and October 14, 2013 where a transaction party causes property damage to the transaction party by intention or negligence in performing real estate brokerage services with the term of mutual aid as from October 15, 2012 to October 14, 2013.

B. On September 13, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate service contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with respect to Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage Consulting and each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The auditor of the said Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage Consulting and Nonparty 3 guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and the main contents of the said contract are as follows.

- In making prior collateral and nominal transfer on credit, the prior collateral collection amount out of the purchase price of KRW 285 million, and the prior collateral collection amount on March 14, 201, and the amount of residual collection and unpaid on the condition of recovery, the consulting will be entered into on December 14, 201, with approximately 600 forest land ( Address 2 omitted) approximately KRW 600,000,000, forest land ( Address 3 omitted) - The prior collateral collection amount out of the purchase price of KRW 285,000,000, and the prior collateral collection amount provided by the seller at the same time on the condition of collection, and the amount provided by the seller at the same time on the condition of collection, the amount provided by the seller at least 6,500,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,000.

C. On September 13, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Nonparty 1 and 2 to sell the instant real estate at KRW 285,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). At the time of entering into the said contract, the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1 and 2 agreed to the effect that “the seller agrees to the instant real estate loan that is held as security at the same time as the contract requires a bank loan, and the name is transferred before September 30, 2010 after the loan occurred.”

D. On the date of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, Nonparty 2 agreed to pay KRW 263,00,000 to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 23,000,000 in the intermediate payment on September 16, 2010, KRW 90,000 in the intermediate payment on December 14, 2010, and KRW 150,000 in the remainder on March 14, 201, and KRW 263,00,000 in the bank loan at the same time as the sales contract for the instant real estate was entered into. Nonparty 2 agreed to the instant real estate loan at the same time before the end of September 201, and agreed to the transfer of the name on or before the end of September 2010, “265,00,000,000 to the seller at ○○○○○○○ operated by Nonparty 1, as a whole, transferred the entire sales contract to the seller at the hospital and the seller at the hospital.

E. On September 13, 2010, the day of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff received 22,000,000 won for the down payment, and 23,000,000 won for the second down payment on September 16, 2010, respectively, from Nonparty 1, and received 23,000,000 won for the consulting fee under the instant service contract from Lone Star Real Estate Brokers. The Plaintiff paid 23,00,000 won for the consulting fee to Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage.

F. On September 14, 2010, according to the terms and conditions of the instant sales contract, Nonparty 2: (a) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring livestock cooperative with the right to collateral security, the debtor, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 195,000 with respect to the instant real estate; and (b) borrowed KRW 150,000,000 from the smuggling Livestock Cooperative.

G. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against Nonparty 2, 1, and 3 by deceiving the Plaintiff without any intention or ability to purchase the instant real estate from Nonparty 2, 2, 1, and 3 even after the date of the payment of intermediate payment of the instant sales contract had been sentenced to KRW 150,00,00. The Busan District Prosecutors' Office decided not to prosecute Nonparty 2, 3, 2469 on April 14, 201, for reasons of Nonparty 1’s unknown whereabouts of Nonparty 2, 2, 3, 100, 200, 200, and 15, 200, 300, 200, 300, 2,000, 3,0000, 3,000, 1,000, 3,000,000, 1,000,000,000 won and 1,00,000 won.

H. On January 20, 201, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 2, 1, and 3 seeking compensation for damages due to a tort, Busan District Court Decision 201Gahap1296, which, on November 30, 201, declared a judgment accepting the claim of KRW 150,000,00 for Nonparty 1 and 2 on November 30, 201, and the damages for delay thereof, the Plaintiff’s claim against Nonparty 3 was dismissed on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that Nonparty 3 conspired with Nonparty 1 and 2 had deceiving the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff withdrawn the lawsuit against Nonparty 3 on December 19, 201, which was the first instance judgment, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on December 24, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 1 and 2 with Nonparty 1 and 2 on October 31, 201, respectively, with the agreement to pay the real estate and the damages for delay to Nonparty 301.

I. Since the Kanyang Livestock Cooperative, which created a right to collateral security on the instant real estate, applied for the commencement of a voluntary auction on April 14, 201, as it was unable to pay the principal and interest of the loan, it received a voluntary decision to commence auction from the Changwon District Court (Seoul District Court) around 2011, which was rendered on April 14, 201. The instant real estate was sold through a voluntary auction on March 2, 2012 and acquired the ownership of Nonparty 4. As a result of the appraisal of the real estate conducted during the said voluntary auction procedure, the market price is 160,072,000 won as of May 3, 201.

(j) On January 15, 2013, the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant for the amount of KRW 175 million, but the Defendant refused the payment of the mutual aid money, having the Plaintiff’s damage caused by consulting, not by brokerage, rather than by the broker.

(k) The main contents of the Defendant’s mutual aid agreement related to the instant case are as follows.

Article 1 (Liability for Compensation) The Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”) included in the main text of this Section shall be bound to compensate for the damage suffered by the parties to the transaction by taking the liability for damages under the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act if the parties to the transaction have caused property damage by intention or negligence to the parties to the transaction in acting as a real estate broker. (1) The aggregate of the amounts of the mutual-aid money which each clients who suffered from the loss due to any intermediary accident that occurred during the period of the Association may receive from the Association regardless of the number of clients or the number of brokerage contracts or the amount of damages, does not exceed the amount of the amount of the mutual-aid money stated in the certificate of mutual-aid. (2) The scope of damages covered by the Association shall be the amount equivalent to the rate of negligence of the parties to the transaction in acting as a real estate broker. (2) The Association shall review the amount of the mutual-aid money to be paid within the scope of the amount of the mutual-aid money requested by the Association.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact inquiry to the head of the same Gu, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage Co., Ltd. agreed that the Plaintiff, while mediating the instant sales contract, shall be liable for and recover the amount of advance collateral collection and remaining amount from the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff agreed that the Plaintiff may set up a collateral prior to receiving the remainder to the buyer, but the buyer did not pay the remainder and the amount of collateral payment to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a mutual aid amount of KRW 175,000,000 (=285,000,000 for the instant purchase price - the down payment of the down payment - KRW 45,00,000 - the consulting fee of KRW 65,00,000) under a mutual aid agreement entered into with the real estate brokerage consulting.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) On October 15, 2010, the Defendant entered into the instant mutual aid agreement with Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage Consulting, and the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales agreement on September 13, 2010, and thus, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay mutual aid money for losses incurred due to brokerage before the period of liability under the mutual aid agreement.

2) The act of Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage Consulting under the instant service contract does not constitute brokerage, and thus, losses arising therefrom are not subject to mutual aid.

3. Determination

(a) Whether a brokerage accident occurs during the period of mutual aid;

On September 13, 2010, at the time of arranging the sale and purchase of the instant real estate, Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage Consulting Co., Ltd. entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant only on October 15, 201, and the period of mutual aid agreement between October 15, 201 and October 14, 201, as seen earlier, the period of mutual aid agreement is from October 15, 201 to October 14, 201. As to whether the Plaintiff is entitled to claim mutual aid even though the instant brokerage act was conducted before the period of mutual aid. Article 2(1) of the mutual aid agreement provides that “damage caused by all intermediary accidents during the period of mutual aid” means that the broker compensates the Defendant for property damage caused to the parties to mutual aid by intention or negligence in performing real estate brokerage. Ultimately, the instant brokerage accident, even if Nonparty 1 and 2 did not pay part of intermediate payment to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff could not claim mutual aid agreement during the period of mutual aid.

B. Whether the act constitutes brokerage

Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act provides that "a broker means mediating the transaction, exchange, lease, and other gain, loss, and transfer of rights between the parties to the transaction regarding the object of brokerage as provided for in Article 3." Article 30(1) of the same Act provides that "a broker shall be liable to compensate the transaction party for the damage of property when the transaction party causes property damage by intention or negligence in performing the act of brokerage." In this context, in light of the purport of the legal provision aimed at the protection of the transaction party, the issue of which act as a broker must be determined by whether the broker has the intention to mediate or mediate the transaction on behalf of the transaction party, not based on the subjective intention of the broker, but on the basis of whether the broker's act objectively deemed as an act for mediating or mediating the transaction in accordance with social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da102940, Jun. 27, 2013).

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage Consulting, a broker under the instant service contract, was not merely arranging the conclusion of a sales contract, but also actively involved in the contractual performance of contractual obligations, such as the buyer’s payment of the balance after concluding a contract and the establishment of a right to collateral security, so that the contractual obligation is smoothly fulfilled. Such act of Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage Consulting is objectively deemed to constitute an act of brokerage in light of social norms.

However, the content of the instant service contract was that the purchaser permitted the Plaintiff to borrow the instant real estate as collateral before receiving the remainder after entering into the instant sales contract, and thus, it was uncertain for the buyer to pay the balance in the event that the purchaser did not use the money borrowed as collateral for the purchase price. Although the purchaser was aware of such circumstances, the Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage Consulting Co., Ltd. arrange for the buyer to pay the balance and obtain a loan of KRW 150 million to the purchaser as collateral before completing the registration of ownership transfer under the purchaser’s name, and did not take any measures to prevent the purchaser’s acts of good faith or nonperformance. Rather, Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage Co., Ltd. was not liable for the Plaintiff’s recovery of the remainder and criminal measures against the Plaintiff, thereby inducing the Plaintiff to enter into the instant sales contract, and the purchaser did not pay the balance on the agreed date after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer to the Kone Star Real Estate Brokerage Co., Ltd., Ltd., and thus, the Plaintiff did not incur losses to the Plaintiff’s property broker or broker’s negligence.

(c) Scope of mutual aid money;

1) Plaintiff’s damages

The Plaintiff lost the ownership of the instant real estate due to the instant brokerage accident, and the fact that the market price according to the appraisal result was KRW 160,072,00 at the time of voluntary auction, as seen earlier. As of the date of closing argument of the instant real estate, the value as of the date of closing argument of the instant real estate is estimated to be the same amount as the market price at the time of voluntary auction, barring special circumstances. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s damages are KRW 160,072,00, which is equivalent to the market price of

2) The plaintiff's negligence ratio

Article 11(2) of the Mutual Aid Terms and Conditions provides that "the defendant shall pay the amount equivalent to the share of the policyholder's fault within the limit of the amount to be deducted from the amount of losses of the plaintiff." Thus, the amount equivalent to the share of the plaintiff's fault in the brokerage accident of this case shall be deducted from the amount of losses of the plaintiff. The following circumstances acknowledged as follows: ① The plaintiff entered into a service contract with Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage to sell the real estate of this case at the low price of about 1.8 times compared to the market price at the time; ② It seems that the plaintiff would have entered into a sales contract with Lone Star Real Estate Brokerage to sell the real estate of this case. ② It would be business practice to allow the purchaser to use the loan using the collateral as the purchase price. However, the plaintiff's permission to set the collateral prior to the transfer of ownership of the object of sale was to use the loan using the collateral as the purchase price. However, the plaintiff agreed on March 14, 2011 to use the loan for other than the purchase price.

3) Loss offsetting

In the event that both non-performance of obligation and tort, etc. cause damages to creditors or victims at the same time, the benefits should be deducted in calculating the damages without waiting for the allegations of the parties, and as such, in calculating the amount of damages, in order to allow a offsetting of damages, there should be a proximate causal relation between the act causing the damages and the act causing the damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da19603, Nov. 30, 2007). The fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 45,00,000 from Non-party 1 the down payment of the sales contract of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff obtained the profit of the above down payment due to the buyer's non-performance of obligation and thus, the said profit should be deducted as a offsetting of damages.

4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 83,057,60 won (i.e., 128,057,600 won - 45,000,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from April 25, 2013 to October 17, 2013, the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff, which is the day when the decision was rendered by the defendant, to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Choyang-hee (Presiding Judge)

Impossibility of signing and sealing due to maternity leave;