1. As to the plaintiff 1's appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

It is not permissible for a person who intentionally committed a tort by taking advantage of the victim’s care to claim to reduce his/her own responsibility on the ground of the victim’s negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da30352, Nov. 14, 1995). However, this is because allowing a person who has such reason to assert comparative negligence to a person is contrary to the principle of good faith (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32999, Jun. 14, 2007). Thus, even if a broker assistant intentionally committed a tort against the victim, who is a party to a trade, even though he/she is an occupational act, if he/she employs the broker assistant, and if he/she was negligent on the part of the victim who is liable to the broker who did not take part in such tort, the court shall take such fact into account in determining liability for damages and its amount in accordance

The court below rejected the plaintiff 1's assertion on the ground that the plaintiff 1 is liable for damages of this case on the premise that the plaintiff 1 is liable for damages of this case on the ground that the plaintiff 1 was negligent and caused damages by negligence as stated in its reasoning, and that the non-party 2 acquired the purchase price by taking advantage of the plaintiff 1's father's care, and that the non-party 1 cannot offset the negligence due to plaintiff 1's negligence. The court below rejected the plaintiff 1's assertion on the ground that the non-party 2, the principal of the tort, and the non-party 1 corporation who employed the broker assistant as the broker, is liable for damages of this case as the broker.

The above judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, and misapprehension of legal principles as to comparative negligence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Where a victim is negligent in causing or expanding damage in a tort compensation case, it must be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of liability for damages. However, fact-finding or determining the ratio thereof as to the grounds for offsetting negligence belongs to the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da62251, 6268, Jan. 18, 2002, etc.).

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the court below in light of the records, the court below's fact-finding or its determination on the grounds for comparative negligence is acceptable to the extent that it is not considerably unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Thus, the ground of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

2. As to the plaintiff 2's appeal

The issue of whether a broker constitutes an act of brokerage under Article 19(1) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 7638 of Jul. 29, 2005, the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall not be determined on the basis of the subjective intention of the broker, not on the basis of whether the broker has an intention to mediate and mediate transactions for a transaction solely in light of the purpose of protecting the transaction parties, but on the basis of whether the broker’s act objectively deemed as an act of brokerage and brokerage in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5508, Feb. 8, 2007).

The court below, based on its adopted evidence, found the facts as stated in its reasoning, and rejected the claim of this case by Plaintiff 2, which was premised on the fact that Nonparty 2 was merely a seller who is not a broker, on the ground that Nonparty 2 was acting as a broker, even if the trade name, etc. of Nonparty 1 corporation was affixed to the real estate agent column of the sales contract, even though Nonparty 2 purchased the land as indicated in the judgment of the court below and sold the above land to Plaintiff 2 as a party to a direct transaction without completing the registration of ownership transfer.

Upon examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of Article 19 (2) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)