2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 47 million won with 5% interest per annum from August 24, 2007 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: Gap 1 through 7, 9, 10, 13, 13, 13 and 7 of the first instance court's 4th 3 through 4 [based on recognition], Gap 1 through 7, 9, 10, 10, 13, 13, and 1 and 7 of the first instance court's 4th 4th 3 through 4 of the first instance court's 4th 7, and Eul 2's 9th 1 through 7, 9, 13, 10, 13 of the witness non-party 2's 4th 4th 1 and 13 of the first instance court's 5th 5th 12 and 13 of the 9th 13th 13th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 3th 2nd 3th 2nd 2nd 20 of the first instance court's judgment.

2. Details to be added between the 5th judgment of the first instance and 13.

“⑹ 공인중개사법 시행령 제26조 제2항 은 “중개업자는 보증보험금·공제금 또는 공탁금으로 손해배상을 한 때에는 15일 이내에 보증보험 또는 공제에 다시 가입하거나 공탁금 중 부족하게 된 금액을 보전하여야 한다”라고 규정하고 있어 피고는 중개업자가 공탁한 공탁금의 한도 내에서만 배상금지급채무의 책임을 부담하는데, 피고는 위와 같이 별건 공제사고의 피해자인 소외 3 등에게 공제금 합계 1억 원 이상을 이미 지급하였으므로, 중개업자인 소외 1에게는 위 조항에 의하여 15일 이내에 공제에 재가입하거나 공탁금을 보전할 의무가 발생하였고, 소외 1은 위와 같은 의무를 이행하지 아니한 결과, 이 사건 공제계약의 효력이 이미 소멸되어 피고는 더 이상 이 사건 공제계약에 따른 공제금을 지급할 의무가 없다.

⑺ 이 사건 공제계약에 기한 공제금 청구권의 소멸시효는 원고들이 공제금 청구권을 행사할 수 있을 때, 즉 원고들이 소외 1의 기망행위에 기하여 전세보증금 상당액을 각 편취당한 날로부터 진행하는데, 원고들은 이 사건 소를 위 각 편취일로부터 2년이 경과된 후에 제기하였으므로, 원고들의 공제금 청구권은 소멸시효 완성으로 소멸하였다.“

3. Details to be added between the first and second deeds of the first instance.

“⑹ 물적 유한 책임에 따른 공제계약의 실효 여부

On the other hand, as seen above, the defendant is liable for the payment of mutual aid to the extent of the amount of compensation for each accident occurred during the period of mutual aid, and the provisions of Article 26 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act are only deemed to be prepared for a new accident that occurs after the mutual aid was paid. Thus, the previous mutual aid contract cannot be deemed retroactively null and void on the ground that the broker failed to perform the above obligation. Therefore, the defendant still is liable for the payment of mutual aid regardless of the above Enforcement Decree, since the defendant is still liable for the mutual aid accident that has already occurred during the period of mutual aid regardless of the above provision. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

⑺ 소멸시효 완성 여부

The fact that the plaintiffs paid the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis after concluding the lease on a deposit basis with the non-party 1 on August 21, 2007 is as seen earlier, and it is evident that it was filed on April 3, 2009, which was before the lapse of two years from the date of concluding the lease on a deposit basis of the lawsuit on a deposit basis. Thus, even according to the defendant's assertion, the period of extinctive prescription does not expire, so the plaintiff's assertion on this part is groundless

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are justified within the scope of each above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Su-cheon (Presiding Judge)