(a) 21,00,000 won from May 9, 2008:

(b) As regards KRW 20,000,000, July 12, 2008:

C. As regards KRW 23,00,000, from August 1, 2008:

(d) As regards 14,00,000 won from September 21, 2008:

(e) From September 30, 2008 for KRW 23,000,00;

F. From October 17, 2008, 23,000 won

By February 26, 2010, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment shall be paid.

2. The defendant 1 and the defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association jointly and severally among the amount of KRW 340,000,000 and the above amount of money for the plaintiff 3

(a) 19,00,000 won from August 9, 2007:

B. As regards KRW 18,00,000, from April 13, 2008:

(c) As regards 14,00,000 won from July 22, 2008:

(d) From July 23, 2008, as regards KRW 19,000,00:

(e) As regards 18,00,000 won from September 6, 2008:

(f) 22,00,000 won from November 10, 2008:

(g) As regards KRW 18,00,000, January 1, 2009

By February 26, 2010, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment shall be paid.

3. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association are dismissed, and the claims against the defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1 shall be borne by the defendant 1. The part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 shall be borne by the plaintiffs. The part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association shall be borne by the plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant Korean Real Estate Agent Association.

5. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(1) From August 9, 200 to 19,00 won, from 19,00 won, from 340,000 won, from 2.0 won, from 10.0 to 20.0 won, from 18,00 won, from 208 to 14, from 000 won, from 20.0 won, from 10% of the above amount, from 20.0 won, from 30% of the above amount, from 20.0 won, from 10% of the above amount, from 20.0 won, from 30% of the above amount, from 20.0 won, from 20% of the above amount, from 30% of the above amount, from 10.0 won, from 20% of the above amount, from 30% of the above amount, from 20.0% of the above amount, from 20% of the above amount, from 30% of the above amount, from 10.10% of the above amount

The following facts are deemed to have been led by Defendant 1 to the confession between the Plaintiffs and Defendant 1. The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (hereinafter “joint intermediary Defendants”) and the Korean Licensed Real Estate Agents Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”); (b) evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) evidence Nos. 1 through 12; (d) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (hereinafter “joint intermediary Defendants”) and the Korean Real Estate Agents Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”); and (c) evidence Nos. 1 through 1, 2, 3, 4,

A. The plaintiff 1 and 2 own 1/2 shares of multi-family houses located in the Dongdaemun-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (number 1 omitted) and one-half shares of residential facilities and detached houses located in the same (number 2 omitted). The plaintiff 3 owns an officetel located in the Dongdaemun-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (number 3 omitted) (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the real estate in this case"). The plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2 are married with the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 3 are the mother of the plaintiff 1, and the ownership of the real estate in this case has been practically exercised by the plaintiff 1.

B. From March 2003 to April 2008, Plaintiff 1 had been entrusted to Nonparty 2 (not licensed real estate agents) with the management of the building, including the conclusion of a lease contract, deposit, and monthly rent, etc. of the instant real estate. Accordingly, Nonparty 2 and Defendant 1, a licensed real estate agent, operated the beneficial real estate agent office on the first floor of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government (number 2 omitted) Seo-gu, Seoul, which is one of the instant real estate, and supported Defendant 1’s brokerage business.

C. Nonparty 2 obtained only the right of representation to conclude a monthly rent contract from Plaintiff 1, thereby seeking to enter into a monthly rent contract without obtaining the prior permission from Plaintiff 1. Nevertheless, Nonparty 2, as if Nonparty 1’s other duties are delegated with the authority to enter into all forms of lease contracts on the instant real estate by forging the power of representation under Plaintiff 1, and presented it as if Nonparty 1 or joint intermediaries were entitled to receive the monthly rent deposit. Nonparty 2 entered into a monthly rent contract with Defendant 1 or joint intermediaries, and received only the amount equivalent to the monthly rent deposit as if the Plaintiffs received the monthly rent contract and received the monthly rent deposit as if the Plaintiffs received the monthly rent deposit, and ② Nonparty 2 made a false monthly rent contract as if he received the monthly rent deposit and received the monthly rent deposit from the Plaintiffs, or made a renewal of the contract without paying the deposit to the Plaintiffs at will or without paying the amount corresponding to the previous monthly rent. < Amended by Act No. 3070, Mar. 3, 2008>

[Attachment 1]

The real estate owned by the plaintiff 1 and 2 (Ga 2 omitted); Dong 2 (Ga 2 omitted); Dong 1 omitted; Dong 1 omitted); Dong : Won :

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 실제 계약일 호수 임차인 소외 2가 수령한 보증금(A) 원고들에게 지급한 보증금(B) 횡령액(A-B) 원고들의 보증금반환 임대차 중개인 반환일자 1 2005.4.5. 가동205 소외 3 2,500 200 2,300 2,500 피고 2 2008.7.31. 2 2005.11.1. 가동101 소외 4 2,100 없음 2,100 미반환 피고 7 3 2006.2.13. 가동301 소외 5 2,300 300 2,000 미반환 피고 3 4 2006.3.22. 나동202 소외 6 1,000(월세) 200 800 미반환 피고 4 5 2006.6.18. 가동302 소외 7 2,400 1,000 1,400 2,400 피고 3 2008.9.20. 6 2007.1.29. 가동105 소외 8 1,000(월세) 없음 1,000 미반환 피고 1 7 2007.2.23. 가동305 소외 9 2,300 200 2,100 미반환 피고 5 8 2007.3.30. 나동205 소외 10 2,300 200 2,100 2,300 피고 5 2008.5.8. 9 2007.4.30. 나동B01 소외 11 2,700 200 2,500 미반환 피고 1 10 2007.4.30. 나동206 소외 12 2,300 200 2,100 미반환 피고 1 11 2007.6.25. 나동102 소외 13 2,200 200 2,000 2,200 피고 6 2008.7.11. 12 2007.6.30. 가동103 소외 14 2,500 100 2,400 미반환 피고 1 13 2007.7.4. 가동306 소외 15 2,300 500 1,800 1,500 피고 1 2009.10.1.(잔액은 월세로 전환) 14 2007.8.1. 나동203 소외 16 2,000 200 1,800 10,882,000원 피고 1 2009.6.17. 15 2007.8.14. 가동206 소외 17 2,300 200 2,100 미반환 피고 6 16 2007.9.10. 나동304 소외 18 2,400 200 2,200 2,400 피고 6 2009.11.3. 17 2007.9.12. 가동304 소외 19 2,500 없음 2,500 미반환 피고 1 18 2007.10.3. 가동201 소외 20 2,800 200 2,600 미반환 피고 1 19 2007.11.4. 가동203 소외 21 2,500 200 2,300 2,500 피고 6 2008.4.16. 2008.7.24. 2008.10.16. 20 2007.11.10 가동202 소외 22 2,500 200 2,300 2,500 피고 6 2008.9.29. 21 2007.11.17 나동104 소외 23 2,500 200 2,300 미반환 피고 1 22 2007.11.21 나동303 소외 24 2,500 200 2,300 미반환 피고 6 23 2006.9.8. 주차장 소외 25 300 100 200 미반환 피고 1 합계 50,200 5,000 45,200 ？ ？ ？ 실제 계약일 호수 임차인 갱신 전 보증금(A) 갱신 후 보증금(B) 횡령액(B-A) 보증금반환 임대차 중개인 1 2006.1.14. 나동301 소외 26 1,800 2,200 400 미반환 피고 7 2 2007.8.8. 가동308 소외 27 2,300 2,700 400 미반환 피고 1 합계 4,100 4,900 800 ？ ？

[Attachment 2]

The real estate owned by the plaintiff 3 (unit: Mawon)>

본문내 포함된 표 ？ 실제 계약일 호수 임차인 소외 2가 수령한 보증금(A) 원고들에게 지급한 보증금(B) 횡령액(A-B) 원고들의 보증금반환 임대차 중개인 반환일자 1 2004.4.11. 401 소외 28 2,000 200 1,800 2,000 피고 7 2008.4.12. 2 2005.6.21. 201 소외 29 2,300 200 2,100 미반환 피고 7 3 2005.12.14. 203 소외 30 1,800 없음 1,800 1,800 피고 7 2008.12.31. 4 2006.4.13. 407 소외 31 1,500 100 1,400 1,500 피고 7 2008.7.21. 5 2006.5.24. 402 소외 32 1,500 1,00 1,400 1,400 피고 4 2008.3.9. 6 2007.1.3. 207 소외 33 1,800 없음 1,800 미반환 피고 1 7 2007.4.6. 206 소외 34 1,800 없음 1,800 1,800 피고 1 2008.9.5. 8 2007.6.11. 101 소외 35 2,000 100 1,900 2,000 피고 1 2008.7.22. 9 2007.7.6. 208 소외 36 2,000 없음 2,000 미반환 피고 6 10 2007.8.6. 204 소외 37 2,000 200 1,800 미반환 피고 1 11 2007.8.6. 406 소외 38 2,000 100 1,900 1,900 피고 1 2007.8.8. 12 2007.9.3. 302 소외 39 2,200 없음 2,200 미반환 피고 8 13 2007.10.5. 102 소외 40 2,200 없음 2,200 2,200 피고 6 2008.11.9. 14 2007.10.8. 303 소외 41 2,200 100원 2,100 2,200 피고 1 2009.7.27. 15 2008.1.12. 307 소외 42 2,000 200 1,800 미반환 피고 1 16 2008.1.18 105 소외 43 2,000 없음 2,000 미반환 피고 1 17 2008.1.26. 107 소외 44 2,300 100 2,200 2,300 피고 9 2009.3.30. 18 2008.2.1. 404 소외 45 1,800 없음 1,800 미반환 피고 6 합계 35,400 1,400 34,000 ？ ？

D. Nonparty 2 was tried on October 6, 2009 on the charge of the above facts constituting a crime and convicted on the charge of fraud, and is currently serving in the Incheon detention center.

E. On March 12, 2003, pursuant to the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”), Defendant 1 entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant Association with a term of one year, setting the amount of mutual aid as KRW 50,00,00, which provides that where a mutual aid policyholder, who is a real estate broker, intentionally or negligently, causes property damage to a transaction party in the course of performing real estate brokerage, he/she shall compensate the transaction party for the property damage incurred to the transaction party within the limit of the amount of mutual aid coverage. From March 12, 2003 to March 11, 2009, the said agreement was renewed on an annual basis, and the joint intermediary Defendants also concluded a mutual aid agreement with Defendant 1 with the same content as that of Defendant 1 through the period from March 12, 2008 to 206.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1 and joint intermediaries

(a) Occurrence of loss;

(1) The plaintiffs suffered damages

The plaintiffs asserted that they sustained damages equivalent to the sum of the embezzled amounts as stated in the above table, and claim in this case. In the case of an act of acting by a person without the authority of representation, if there are justifiable grounds to believe that a third party has the authority of representation beyond the scope of the authority of representation, the principal is responsible for such act. Accordingly, we examine this issue.

(A) Whether the plaintiffs' apparent representation liability is recognized

1) The following facts are deemed to have been led to Defendant 1’s confessions between the Plaintiffs and Defendant 1. The following facts can be acknowledged by taking account of the absence of any dispute between the Plaintiffs and the joint intermediary Defendants, the entry of the evidence No. 1 B, the court’s entrustment of the delivery of documents to the Incheon District Court, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of Nonparty 2’s examination

A) From March 2003 to April 2008, Nonparty 2 leased individual housing units of the instant real estate to lessees and received all of the lease deposits. The real estate intermediaries in the Nam-gu Incheon Nam-gu knew that Nonparty 2 was in charge of the management of the conclusion, etc. of the lease contract for the instant real estate from around 2004, and the Plaintiff 1 asked the Plaintiff 1 to lease to Nonparty 2.

B) Until March 2005, Nonparty 2 paid all the deposits and rents received from the lessees of the instant real estate to Plaintiff 1. From April 2005, Nonparty 2 entered into a mortgage lease agreement and began to pay only part of the deposit to Plaintiff 1 as it entered into a monthly lease agreement.

C) When entering into a lease agreement with the joint intermediary Defendants on the instant real estate, Nonparty 2 said that the joint intermediary Defendants, like the lease agreement that was concluded without any existing problem, was concluded with the consent of Plaintiff 1, and in particular, around August 2006, Nonparty 2 issued to Defendant 6 a letter of delegation that he forged with the Plaintiff 1’s certificate of personal seal impression.

2) The following facts acknowledged by the above facts are as follows: ① from March 2003, Nonparty 2 operated a licensed real estate agent office on the first floor of Dongdaemun-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (number 2 omitted) on behalf of the plaintiffs, and managed the real estate in this case by entering into a lease agreement on behalf of the plaintiffs; ② Nonparty 2 was actually granted the authority to represent the monthly rent contract by Plaintiff 1; Plaintiff 1 was also given the joint intermediary, and Defendant 6 received the delegation and seal impression of Plaintiff 1 from Nonparty 2. Meanwhile, in light of the fact that the above delegation was forged by Nonparty 2, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1 was aware of the forgery of the contract, and even if the above delegation was deemed to have been held by Nonparty 2, it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable reason for the Defendants to believe that it was difficult for the Defendants to continuously conclude the lease agreement on the real estate by proxy beyond the scope of the former agent’s right to represent and to use the real estate as a means to manage the real estate in this case.

(B) Sub-decisions

Since the plaintiffs are liable to act as an expression agent for the above lease agreements concluded by the non-party 2 beyond the authorized scope, it would eventually lead to the non-party 2's embezzlement of all or part of the lease deposit under each of the above lease agreements, which would cause a real loss or at least a specific risk of damage.

(2) Determination on the assertion of the Defendant Association

(A) The Defendant Association asserts that (i) in the case of an unauthorized representation of consultation, the principal does not assume any legal responsibility on behalf of the other party to the act of representation; (ii) the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to their arbitrary return to the lessee do not have any causal relationship with the intention or negligence caused by the act of brokerage of the other Defendants, a licensed real estate agent, and thus, the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs cannot be recognized.

(B) On the other hand, as seen earlier, the plaintiffs are liable for damages to the plaintiffs in the event of the occurrence of damages or the specific risk of damages as to each of the above lease agreements. Thus, this part of the defendant's association's assertion is without merit, and the plaintiffs return the whole or part of the lease deposit actually received by the non-party 2 to some lessees as set out in the above table. This is merely the plaintiff's performance of the duty of follow-up. Thus, the remaining defendants are liable for damages to the extent that it is acknowledged as intentional or negligent in the conclusion of the lease agreement beyond the authority of the non-party 2. Thus, this part of the defendant's association's assertion is without merit.

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

(1) Defendant 1’s liability for damages

According to the above facts, pursuant to Article 30 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act and Articles 750 and 756 of the Civil Act, Defendant 1 is liable to compensate the plaintiffs as the employers of Nonparty 2, who suffered losses due to the duties of licensed real estate agents.

(2) Joint intermediaries' liability for damages

(A) The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that, in the event that the joint intermediary Defendants jointly act as a broker with Defendant 1 and Nonparty 2 regarding the instant real estate in excess of the scope of authority of Nonparty 2, Defendant 1 and Nonparty 2 should verify whether they were authorized to enter into the obligatory transfer contract on behalf of the plaintiffs on behalf of the building owner after confirmation by the plaintiffs, but they concluded the obligatory transfer contract without confirmation at all, and they caused damages to the plaintiffs. Thus, Defendant 1 and each of them are liable to compensate for the damages.

2) Claim by the joint intermediary Defendants

Joint intermediaries Defendants are the actual owners of the instant real estate and the rest of the Plaintiffs did not participate in the lease agreement. ① Joint intermediaries agreement arranged by the Joint Brokerage Defendants falls under the scope of the right of representation of Nonparty 2, and thus falls under the scope of the right of representation of Nonparty 2, and ② Even if Non-Party 2 committed an act beyond the scope of the right of representation, this constitutes a case where justifiable grounds exist in the expressive representation beyond the authority, or there was no objection for a considerable period of time, and Plaintiff 1 was taking advantage of the fact that Non-Party 2’s illegal act was committed by Non-Party 2, it can be deemed that Plaintiff 1 ratified the unauthorized Representation. Considering this, the negligence of the Joint Brokerage Defendants is not recognized, and thus, they cannot accept the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages.

(B) Determination

1) Whether the claim transfer tax belongs to the scope of the case accepted by Nonparty 2

According to the above facts, in a case where Nonparty 2 obtained the right of representation to conclude a monthly rent contract from Plaintiff 1, and in a case where Nonparty 2 wants to conclude a monthly rent contract without any rent, he obtained the prior permission from Plaintiff 1, and thus, the claim transfer tax amount falls under the scope of the case of Nonparty 2. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the claim transfer tax amount falls under the scope of the case of Nonparty 2. In general, since the lease contract in the form of monthly rent and the claim transfer contract in the form of the monthly rent lease contract are

2) Whether the negligence of the joint intermediary Defendants is recognized

As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs are liable to act as an expression agent with respect to the lease agreement on the instant real estate. As such, the Defendants as joint intermediaries are deemed to have justifiable grounds to believe that Nonparty 2 had the right to enter into the obligatory lease agreement. Therefore, even if the joint intermediaries do not confirm the scope of the right of representation of Nonparty 2 in the course of mediating the lease agreement on the instant real estate, they cannot be deemed to have breached the duty of due care as a real estate intermediary, and therefore, the said assertion by the joint intermediaries is reasonable, and the Plaintiffs’ claim against the joint intermediaries is therefore groundless.

C. Scope of damages

(1) The damages of the plaintiff 1 and 2

The fact that Nonparty 2, on behalf of the Plaintiff 1 and 2, entered into a lease contract with the lessee described in the above [Attachment 1] and received the lease deposit (A). The fact that Plaintiff 1 returned all or part of the lease deposit that Nonparty 2 actually received from Nonparty 3, 7, 10, 13, 21, and 22 among the above lessees is as seen earlier, and Plaintiff 1 received the amount equivalent to the deposit amount (B) paid from the above lessee in the lease contract with the above lessee.

In conclusion, the plaintiff 1 and 2 suffered losses equivalent to the aggregate amount of embezzlement of the non-party 2 as stated above [Attachment 1]. Thus, as the plaintiff 1 and 2 seek from the plaintiff 1 and 2 the aggregate amount of embezzlement of 460,000,000 won and the above amount of 21,000,000 won from May 9, 2008 on the date following the date when deposit is refunded to the non-party 10; (B) the lessee is obligated to return 20,000,000 won from July 12, 2008 following the date when deposit is refunded to the non-party 2; (c) the lessee is to return 20,000,000 won from the 20,0000,000 won from the 20,0000,000 won from the date following the date when deposit is refunded; and (d) the lessee is to return 20,000,000 won from the 200.

(2) Plaintiff 3’s damages

The fact that Nonparty 2, on behalf of the Plaintiff 3, received the lease deposit after entering into a lease agreement with the lessee described in the above [Attachment 2] (A), and that Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 3 returned all or part of the lease deposit that Nonparty 2 actually received from Nonparty 2 among the above lessees to Nonparty 28, 30, 31, 34, 35, 38, and 40 is as seen above, and Plaintiff 3 received from Nonparty 2 the amount equivalent to the above [Attachment 2] deposit paid to the Plaintiffs under the lease agreement with the above lessee.

In conclusion, the plaintiff 3 suffered losses equivalent to the aggregate amount of embezzlement of the non-party 2 stated above [Attachment 2]. Thus, as the plaintiff 1 seeks from 340,00,000 won in total and above amount of embezzlement of 19,000,000 won in the lease contract of 38 non-party 3. The lessee is obligated to return 18,00,000 won in 28 non-party 10,000 annual amount of embezzlement of 10,000,000 won following the day following the day when deposit is refunded, 20.0,000 won in the lease contract of 20,000,000 won in 18,000 won in 20,000,000 won in 20,000,000 won in 20,000 won in 30,000,000 won in each of the following day following the day when deposit is refunded.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant Association

A. Defendant Association’s duty to pay mutual aid money

(1) In the case of Defendant 1

As seen earlier, Defendant 1 is obligated to compensate the Plaintiffs for the amount of each embezzlement set forth in Article 2-3(3) of the above Act. As such, Defendant Association, which is a mutual aid business entity for the liability for damages caused by Defendant 1’s brokerage, is jointly and severally liable with Defendant 1 to compensate the Plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the amount of such embezzlement

(2) In the case of joint intermediaries

As seen earlier, the joint intermediary Defendants cannot be deemed to have breached their duty of care as real estate intermediaries in the process of concluding the instant lease agreement, so the Defendant Association, a mutual aid business entity, is not obligated to pay mutual aid money. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant Association is without merit.

B. Determination on the argument that the Defendant Association should pay mutual aid money

(1) Defendant Association’s assertion

The defendant association asserts that the limit of the payment of the mutual aid money to the defendant association refers to the "total amount of compensation for the accident occurred within each period of mutual aid", so the defendant 1 is liable to pay the mutual aid money within the remaining limit after the non-party 16 received the deduction amount from the 50,000,000 won of the deduction limit to the 50,000 won, excluding the 8,400,000 won among the lessees, so the amount of compensation by the defendant association should be limited

(2) Determination

In full view of the purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 4, it is recognized that Article 2(1) of the Credit Clause provides that the amount to be compensated by the defendant association shall be limited to the amount of subscription (the defendant association also submits the Credit Clause as evidence No. 5, but Article 3 subparag. 5 of the Credit Clause regarding the amount of deduction under the above Credit Clause is not applicable to the instant lease agreement entered into force from January 1, 2009 and entered into force before 2009, and thus, it is not considered as evidence).

According to the above facts, in light of the various provisions of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act and the purport of the mutual aid program system, the structure and the text of the provision regarding the guarantee of the client's liability for damages, the contents of the above mutual aid agreement can only be interpreted as setting the "limit on compensation per accident" caused by the real estate brokerage act, and it cannot be viewed as setting the "limit on total compensation for all mutual aid accidents occurred during the period of mutual aid" with respect to the one-person mutual aid subscribers (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da3949 Decided April 10, 2008), and the above assertion by the defendant Association is without merit.

C. Determination on the assertion of extinctive prescription by the Defendant Association

(1) Defendant Association’s assertion

The defendant Association asserts that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the payment of mutual-aid money is two years, and the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit of this case on February 26, 2009. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the payment of mutual-aid money for the lease agreements concluded two years prior to the date of filing the lawsuit by the plaintiffs is completed, so the plaintiffs' claim

(2) Determination

The mutual aid system operated by the defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association under the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act is a system with the nature of guarantee insurance to guarantee a broker's liability for damages to a transaction party due to his/her illegal act or default (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da47261, Sept. 29, 195). In cases where a mutual aid policyholder, who is a real estate broker, has caused property damage to a transaction party due to intention or negligence in acting as a broker, the client may directly request the defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association to pay the mutual aid money in the same position as the insured of the so-called non-life insurance contract between the broker and the defendant pursuant to the mutual aid agreement

In addition, since the mutual-aid business operated by the defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association is similar to the mutual-aid business in its nature even though it is not an insurance business under the Insurance Business Act, the provisions of Article 664 of the Commercial Act concerning the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 662 of the Commercial Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the extinctive prescription of the claim for mutual-aid by the broker against the mutual-aid business operator (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da47094 delivered on March 28, 1995). Since the claim for mutual-aid money becomes entitled to exercise its right from the time when the occurrence of the mutual-aid accident becomes specific and conclusive due to the occurrence of the mutual-aid accident, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription shall run from the time when the mutual-aid accident under Article 166(1) of the Civil Act occurred (see Supreme Court Decisions 201Da39602 delivered on February 8, 202; 9Da6878 delivered on March 23, 2000).

However, even if it is objectively unclear whether an insurance accident occurred or not, and even if the claimant was unable to know the occurrence of the insurance accident without negligence, the interpretation that the extinctive prescription of the insurance claim will run from the time when the insurance accident occurred is too harsh to the claimant, and it cannot be deemed that not only contravenes the social justice and equity principle, but also accords with the reason for the existence of the extinctive prescription system. Therefore, in a case where it is objectively difficult to confirm the occurrence of the insurance accident in light of such objective, the interpretation that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the insurance amount will run from the time when the claimant knew or could have known the occurrence of the insurance accident (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da3116

As a result of the court's commission of document delivery to the Incheon District Court, in full view of the whole purport of the argument of the plaintiff 2, some lessees of the real estate of this case requested the plaintiff 1 from 2006 to 2007 to return the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the deposit of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease.

According to the above facts, although the plaintiff 1 delegated the authority to conclude a monthly rent contract on the real estate of this case to the non-party 2, the non-party 2 actually entered into an obligatory rent contract and deposited the monthly rent in the name of the third party, so it seems that the plaintiff 1 had no choice but to believe that the monthly rent contract was normally concluded and maintained, and the problem occurred only after the non-party 2 was delayed from the end of 2007 or from the beginning of 2008 to the end of 2008, and the office of the non-party 2 was closed on April 2008. Considering these circumstances, the plaintiff 1 appears to have been aware of the occurrence of the accident at the end of 2007 or at the latest around April 2008, and the fact that the lawsuit of this case was brought before the expiration of 2 years thereafter is apparent in the record, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendant's association is without merit.

D. Determination on the assertion of offsetting negligence by Defendant Association

The Defendant Association asserts that even if the responsibility of the Defendant Association is recognized, the amount claimed by the Plaintiffs should be reduced according to the percentage of negligence, as there is gross negligence that did not confirm the contractual relationship, etc. for a long time, even if the Defendants entrusted Defendant 1 and Nonparty 2 with the management of the instant real estate.

If the victim's negligence is acknowledged in a lawsuit claiming damages, the court shall take such factors into account in determining the liability for damages and the amount thereof, and even if the person liable for damages does not assert the victim's negligence, the court shall, ex officio, examine and determine it in cases where the victim's negligence is recognized by the litigation materials. However, it is not permissible to assert that the person who intentionally committed the tort using the victim's negligence reduces his liability on the ground of the victim's negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32197, Oct. 7, 2005).

Therefore, even if there is negligence on the part of the defendant association's assertion, even in this case where the defendant association seeks the payment of mutual aid money under the mutual aid agreement against the defendant association on the grounds of the non-party 2's fraud or embezzlement, it is not allowed to offset the negligence by taking the victim's negligence. Therefore, this part of the defendant association's assertion is without merit.

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant association is jointly and severally obligated to pay the amount stated in Article 2-C (1) to the plaintiff 1 and 2, and is jointly and severally obligated to pay the amount stated in Article 2-C (2) to the plaintiff 3.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant 1 are accepted on the ground of the reasons, and the claims against the defendant association are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed on the ground of the reasons. The claims against the joint intermediary defendants are dismissed on the ground of the reasons. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon-tae (Presiding Judge)