임차보증금반환 등
1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association shall be modified as follows:
Defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The parties 1) B are Gtel No. 804 in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant officetel”).
2) E is the owner of the instant officetel building 305, which is a licensed real estate agent operating the H Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, and C is a person working as a brokerage assistant at the said H Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, and Defendant F is the representative licensed real estate agent of the I Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.
B. C’s lease contract 1) B delegated the instant officetel’s management duties to J and K, one’s parents, and the J, around July 201, entrusted C with the instant officetel lease contract brokerage and issued the studs of the studs of the studs. (2) On February 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff visited the I Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Office to request for the lease brokerage, and the employee M of the I Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Office introduced C as a lessor’s licensed real estate agent while introducing the instant officetel.
3) On February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff visited C’s office to enter into a lease agreement with M, and at the time, C was the agent who was delegated by B with the authority to enter into the instant officetel lease agreement. The Plaintiff, in the presence of M on the same day, was the leased deposit for the instant officetel between C and C, and the period from March 16, 2012 to March 16, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
(4) The Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Seoul Western District Court on October 11, 2013 in the case where: (a) the Plaintiff remitted the lease deposit to C; (b) but C was charged with the said officetel without the delegation from C; and (c) C entered into a contract with the Seoul Western District Court for the lease of real estate in the name of B, the statement of confirmation of the object of brokerage, and the receipt; and (d) the Plaintiff used the above contract with the Seoul Western District Court on October 11, 2013, in the case where: (a) the agreement with the Seoul Western District Court on the lease of real estate in the name of B, the statement of confirmation of the object of brokerage, and the receipt were forged and forged; and (b) the Plaintiff used it.