A. Plaintiff 1:

1) Defendant 1 (Counter-board: Nonparty 2) is a co-defendant of the first instance trial and KRW 32,825,510 each of them, and the interest rate of 20% per annum from June 23, 2016 to the date of full payment;

2) Defendant 2 (Counter-board: Defendant 1) and Defendant 3 calculated at the rate of KRW 25 million, of the amount indicated in Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1 and Nonindicted 1, respectively, and the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 5 million per annum from April 30, 2015 to September 8, 2016, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment:

B. Plaintiff 2:

1) The amount calculated by Defendant 1 at the rate of 20% per annum from September 1, 2016 to the date of full payment with respect to Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 23 million won, respectively, of the first instance co-Defendant 1:

2) Defendants 4 and 5% per annum from April 30, 2015 to September 8, 2016, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, among the amounts described in Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1, respectively, as well as the 12.9 million won per annum;

C. Plaintiff 3:

1) Defendant 1’s co-defendant 1 and 30,33,002 each of them and 20% per annum from June 23, 2016 to the date of full payment:

2) Defendant 5’s co-defendant 1 and the first instance court’s co-defendant 1 and each of the above 2.5 million won and each of the above 1 shall be 5% per annum from April 30, 2015 to September 8, 2016, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

D. Plaintiff 4:

1) Defendant 1’s co-defendant 1 and 32,825,510 each of them and 20% per annum from June 23, 2016 to the date of full payment:

2) Defendants 2 and 6 shall pay 22.5 million won and 5% per annum from April 30, 2015 to September 8, 2016, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, among the amounts written in Defendant 1, Co-Defendant 1 and Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 1, each of whom is written, as well as 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment;

3) Defendant 7’s 15 million won out of the amount indicated in Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Co-Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 6, and Nonindicted 1 as well as Defendant 7’s 5% per annum from April 30, 2015 to September 8, 2016, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

E. Plaintiff 5:

1) Defendant 1’s co-defendant 1 and 32,825,510 each of them and 20% per annum from June 23, 2016 to the date of full payment:

2) Defendant 2 and Defendant 8 shall pay 15 million won, among the amount described in Defendant 1, Co-Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1 and each of the above 1) and 20% interest per annum from April 30, 2015 to September 8, 2016, and 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

(f) Plaintiff 6:

1) Defendant 1’s co-defendant 1 and 26,594,241 won each of them and 20% per annum from June 23, 2016 to the date of full payment:

2) Defendant 9: (a) the amount of KRW 13.5 million out of the amount described in Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1, respectively, and KRW 13.5 million per annum from April 30, 2015 to September 8, 2016; and (b) the amount of 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment;

G. Plaintiff 7:

1) Defendant 1’s co-defendant 1 and 32,825,510 each of them and 20% per annum from June 23, 2016 to the date of full payment:

2) Defendant 10% per annum from April 30, 2015 to September 8, 2016, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, among the amount described in Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 1 and Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 1, respectively, 13.5 million won per annum.

sub-payment.

H. The remainder of the claim by Plaintiff 1 against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, the remainder of the claim by Plaintiff 2 against Defendant 1 and Defendant 4, the remainder of the claim by Plaintiff 3 against Defendant 1 and Defendant 5, the remainder of the claim by Plaintiff 4 against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 6, and Defendant 7, the remainder of the claim by Plaintiff 5 against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 8, the remainder of the claim by Plaintiff 5 against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 8, the remainder of the claim by Plaintiff 6 against Defendant 1, and Defendant 9, and the remainder of the claim by Plaintiff 7 against Defendant 1 and Defendant 10, respectively.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne as follows:

A. The part between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1 is borne by the defendant 1.

B. Of the parts arising between the Plaintiffs 1, 3, and 4 and the Defendants 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7, 50% of the above Plaintiffs, and 50% of the above Defendants respectively.

C. Of the parts arising between Plaintiffs 2, 5, 6, and 7 and Defendants 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10, 70% shall be borne by the said Plaintiffs, and 30% by the said Defendants, respectively.

3. The part on the payment of money under paragraph (1) above may be provisionally executed.

A. Purport of the claim against Defendant 1

Defendant 1, jointly and severally with Nonparty 1 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted 1”), Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, jointly and severally with Plaintiff 1, 32,825,510, and jointly and severally with Nonparty 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 5, and jointly and severally with Plaintiff 30,33,002, ③ Nonparty 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 6, and Defendant 7, jointly and severally with Plaintiff 4, KRW 32,825,510, ④ Nonparty 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 8, jointly and severally with Plaintiff 5, KRW 32,825,510, and KRW 26,594,241, KRW 10, KRW 725,510, and KRW 200,000, KRW 325,510,000 per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, and KRW 32,202,000,00 per annum.

B. Claim against the remaining Defendants

In collaboration with Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1, ① Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 pay to Plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 50 million; ② Defendant 48 million to Plaintiff 2; ③ Defendant 5 pays to Plaintiff 3 the amount of KRW 48 million; ④ Defendant 2, Defendant 6, and Defendant 7 paid to Plaintiff 4 the amount of KRW 50 million; ⑤ Defendant 2, Defendant 8, Defendant 50 million to Plaintiff 5; ⑤ Defendant 9 paid to Plaintiff 6 the amount of KRW 45 million; and ② Defendant 10 paid to Plaintiff 7 the amount of KRW 50 million and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the day following the final delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the corresponding plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

A. Status of the parties

The non-party 1 is the owner of the multi-family house on the ground (location omitted) in Chungcheongnam-si, and the defendant 1 is the non-party 1's wife, who directly entered into a lease agreement on the multi-family house in this case with the plaintiffs on behalf of the non-party 1.

(b) Conclusion, etc. of a lease agreement;

1) On April 30, 201, Plaintiff 1 entered into a lease agreement with Defendant 2, a licensed real estate agent engaging in real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “○○ Licensed Real Estate Agent Office,” and “△△ Licensed Real Estate Agent,” which is the broker of Defendant 3, a licensed real estate agent engaging in real estate brokerage business. Defendant 1 and Defendant 1, who represented Nonparty 1, entered into a contract with Nonparty 1, under which the portion of “D” indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, among the instant multi-family houses, was determined as lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, and the lease deposit was fully paid from June 10, 201 to June 10, 2013, and the lease deposit was renewed for two years again after the lease term expires.

2) On March 28, 2011, Plaintiff 2 entered into a lease agreement with Defendant 4, a licensed real estate agent engaging in real estate brokerage business under the name of “Seongsan Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 1, who represented Nonparty 1, set the term of lease deposit amounting to KRW 43 million, and the term of lease from April 25, 201 to April 25, 2013, and paid all the lease deposit, and paid KRW 5 million as well as the lease deposit at Defendant 1’s request when concluding a renewed contract with Nonparty 1 on behalf of Nonparty 1.

3) On October 1, 2010, Plaintiff 3 concluded a lease agreement with Defendant 5, a licensed real estate agent engaging in real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “licensed real estate agent at issue,” and with Defendant 1, who represented Nonparty 1, the part of the “Ma” indicated in the annexed drawing No. 1 of the instant multi-family house, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 45 million and the lease term of KRW 5 million from November 5, 2010 to November 5, 2012, and paid all the lease deposit, and the lease deposit was paid in addition to KRW 3 million at the request of Defendant 1, who was represented by Nonparty 1 while concluding a lease agreement for the renewal of two years after the lease term expires.

4) On March 19, 201, Plaintiff 4: (a) concluded a lease agreement with Defendant 2, a licensed real estate agent conducting real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “○○ Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”; and (b) Defendant 6, a licensed real estate agent conducting real estate brokerage business; and (c) Defendant 1 and Defendant 1, who represented Nonparty 1, concluded a lease agreement with the terms that the portion of “B” indicated in the attached Form 1, among the instant multi-family houses, is KRW 45 million; and (d) from April 29, 2011 to April 29, 2013; and (e) paid all the lease deposit. Plaintiff 4, on April 19, 2013, concluded a lease agreement with Defendant 7 brokerage, a licensed real estate agent conducting real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “○○ Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”; and (e) paid KRW 150,000,000 upon Nonparty 1’s request for renewal of the lease agreement with Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1.

5) On February 28, 2012, Plaintiff 5 concluded a lease agreement with Defendant 2, a licensed real estate agent engaging in real estate brokerage business under the trade name, “○○ Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”, which is a licensed real estate agent conducting real estate brokerage business, and Defendant 8, a licensed real estate agent conducting real estate brokerage business. Defendant 1 and Defendant 1, who represented Nonparty 1, concluded a lease agreement with the terms that the portion of “private” indicated in the attached drawing Nos. 1 of the instant multi-family house, which is KRW 50 million, and the term of lease from March 21, 2012 to March 21, 2014, and paid all the lease deposit, and the lease deposit was renewed for two years again after the term of lease expires.

6) On August 4, 2011, Plaintiff 6 concluded a lease agreement with Defendant 9, a licensed real estate agent engaging in real estate brokerage, with the name of “licensed real estate agent office”, and with Defendant 1, who represented Nonparty 1, the part of “A” indicated in the annexed drawing No. 1 of the instant multi-family house, which was determined as lease deposit amounting to KRW 45 million, the term of lease from August 10, 201 to August 10, 2013, and paid all lease deposit, and the lease deposit was renewed for two years again after the term of lease expires.

7) 원고 7은 2009. 5. 14. ‘◁◁공인중개사사무소’라는 상호로 부동산중개업을 하는 공인중개사인 피고 10(개명 전이던 당시의 이름은 ‘▷▷▷'이었으나, 이하에서는 전후 구별 없이 ’피고 10‘이라 한다)의 중개로, 소외 1을 대리한 피고 1과 사이에 이 사건 다가구주택 중 별지 1 도면 표시 ’자‘ 부분을 임대차보증금 4,500만 원, 임대차기간 2009. 5. 25.부터 2011. 5. 24.까지로 정하여 임차하는 내용의 임대차계약을 체결하고, 임대차보증금을 모두 지급하였으며, 임대차기간이 종료된 후 다시 2년을 갱신하는 계약을 체결하면서 소외 1을 대리한 피고 1의 요구에 따라 임대차보증금 500만 원을 추가로 지급하였다.

C. Progress of the relevant dispute

1) Of the size 1,602 square meters of the instant multi-family house, the owner on the registry attached to 248 square meters inside the ship (hereinafter “instant land”) connected each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, among the area of 1,602 square meters in Gan-si ( Address omitted) where the instant multi-family house is located, was the Jeonyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-si Society (hereinafter “instant land”). On March 17, 2011, the owner on the registry filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 1 for the removal of buildings, etc. (the Suwon-gun District Court 201Da187855).

2) On July 11, 201, when the lawsuit was pending, the following conciliation was concluded between the defendant 1 who represented by the Ansan-gun and the non-party 1.

The non-party 1. Table contained in the main text 1. The non-party 1. The non-party 1 entered into a sales contract for the sale of the land to a third party in Ansan-si (location omitted) or when the permission for the development project of the land was obtained from the competent authority during Ansan-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-si, the non-party 1 shall pay

3) On January 17, 2014, the Republic of Korea sold the land (location omitted) to the Human Library Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Public Entertainment”), which included the instant land, on which January 17, 2014, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on February 6, 2014.

4) On April 22, 2014, Entertainment filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and Plaintiff 6 regarding “A” as indicated in the attached Form 1 drawings from Nonparty 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the instant multi-family house ( Suwon District Court 2014dan24804).

5) On December 4, 2014, during the course of the instant lawsuit, the Entertainment and Nonparty 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 3, and the Plaintiff 2, 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7, and Nonparty 3 were paid KRW 4 million each from the Scambos to April 30, 2015, while receiving KRW 4 million each from Non-Party 2, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 3, Non-Party 4, and Non-Party 4, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 3, Non-Party 5, Non-Party 7, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, Non-Party 1, and Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, Non-Party 1, and Non-Party 1, Non-Party 2, Non-Party 2, and Non-Party 3, Non-Party 5, respectively.

6) Around January 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1 on suspicion of fraud, and the Prosecutor brought a public prosecution against Defendant 1 on March 23, 2015 (the Suwon District Court Decision 2015Da969) against Defendant 1 on the charge of fraud, and issued a disposition against Nonparty 1 on the ground that the lack of evidence was proven.

D. Removal, etc. of the plaintiffs

On April 30, 2015, while the lawsuit of this case was pending in the court of first instance, the Plaintiffs removed from the multi-family house of this case, and Nonparty 1 did not refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiffs.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 11, Gap evidence 13, 20, 22, 23, Eul evidence 2, 2, 6, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 1

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

1) In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the first instance court’s fact fact finding, Defendant 1, his agent, concluded a lease agreement on the instant multi-family house with the Plaintiffs, (i) the land in this case was owned by the Plaintiffs, not Nonparty 1, and (ii) the land in this case was owned by the Anyang-gun, Ayang-gun, and (iii) the agreement that Nonparty 1 would remove the instant multi-family house in this case, and did not request the payment of the deposit, etc. for the lessee to the Ansan-gun, and (iv) Nonparty 1 would not notify the Plaintiffs of the fact that the instant multi-family house could not be refunded or substantially difficult if the instant multi-family house was removed due to the lack of any income or property.

2) Whether the ownership of the land which serves as the foundation for the existence of the building in the building lease is established or how the right to use the land is established from the lessee’s standpoint ought to be considered as an important factor to determine whether to conclude the lease contract. If the Plaintiffs knew that the instant land in which the instant multi-family house is located is not owned by Nonparty 1, but is not a right to use the instant land, it would be reasonable to deem that the instant multi-family house was not concluded between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1 who represented Nonparty 1.

3) Ultimately, the fact that Nonparty 1 or Defendant 1 did not notify the circumstances described in paragraph (1) while entering into a lease agreement with the Plaintiffs constitutes a joint tort by an implied deception against the Plaintiffs. Therefore, Defendant 1 is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages arising from the said tort.

B. Scope of liability for damages

1) The damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as above are the amount equivalent to the lease deposit that the Plaintiffs paid according to the lease agreement or the renewal contract of the apartment house in this case. Accordingly, barring any special circumstance, Defendant 1 is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs 1 to the Plaintiff 1, 50 million won, 48 million won to the Plaintiff 2, 48 million won (=43 million won + 5 million won + 3 million won) to the Plaintiff 3, 48 million won (=45 million won + 45 million won + 5 million won + 5 million won), and 45 million won to the Plaintiff 4, 50 million won (= 5 million won + 5 million won), and 5 million won to the Plaintiff 6, 57 million won, and 5 million won to the Plaintiff 5, 45 million won, and 5 million won to the Plaintiff 2,505 million won per annum from each of the instant special cases concerning the promotion of multi-family houses and 4.5 million won to the Plaintiff 5 million won.

2) However, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul, 6, and 10, Defendant 1 may recognize the fact that the aforementioned amount is deposited or repaid after the date the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered. The fact that the Plaintiffs corresponding thereto received deposit or repayment money is also acknowledged by the Plaintiffs’ agent. Accordingly, the aforementioned deposit or repayment money should be deducted from the amount of compensation for damages (as such, Plaintiff 2 shall be deducted from the amount of compensation for damages (i.e., KRW 48 million deducted from the amount of deposit KRW 15 million from the amount of compensation for damages and additional payment KRW 10 million from the date of pleading at the first instance trial, and (ii) KRW 23 million from the amount of compensation for damages. The remainder of the Plaintiffs also reduced the claim through the submission of the above preparatory documents, the preparatory documents on June 28, 2016, and the statement at the fourth instance trial as stated in the claim for reimbursement of each claim.

5,000,000 for 15,000 for 15,000,000 for 15,000 for 15,000 for 15,00 for 15,000 for 15,000 for 15,000 for 15,000 for 15,000 for 15,000 for 15,000 for 15,000 for 15,000 for 15,000 for 15,000 for 1,005,00 for 1,000 for 1,000 for 315,000 for 315,000 for 1,000 for 1,000 for 1,000 for 315,000 for 100,000 for 1,000 for 100 for 5,007

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, in reflecting Defendant 1’s above deposit, repayment and the Plaintiffs’ claim reduction accordingly, Defendant 1’s obligation to pay the amount to Nonparty 1 and each of the Plaintiffs is the same as the amount indicated in each of the following subparagraphs 1 through 4.

1) Plaintiffs 1, 4, 5, and 7

A) The above plaintiffs' lease deposit

Each KRW 50 million (including increased lease deposits)

B) As of the first deposit date ( October 5, 2015)

(1) The amount appropriated for damages for delay: 4,356,164 won (=50,000,000 won) ¡¿ 159 days x 365 days x 0.2, and less than won: hereinafter the same shall apply)

② Amount appropriated for principal: 10,643,836 won (=15,000,000 won - 4,356,164 won)

③ Principal Balance: 39,356,164 won (=50,000,000 - 10,643,836 won)

C) As of the second deposit date ( April 6, 2016)

(1) The amount appropriated for damages for delay: 3,957,122 won (=39,356,164 won) ¡¿ 184 days/36 days x 0.2)

② Amount appropriated for principal: 3,042,878 won (=7,000,000 won - 3,957,122)

③ The principal balance: 36,313,286 won (=39,356,164 won - 3,042,878 won)

D) As of the third deposit date ( June 22, 2016)

(1) The amount appropriated for damages for delay: 1,532,122 won (=36,313,286 won x 77 days/365 days x 2)

② The amount appropriated for principal: 3,467,878 won (=5,000,000 won - 1,532,122)

③ The principal balance: 32,845,408 won (=36,313,286 won - 3,467,878 won)

E) Principal after the deduction

As a result, the principal amount shall be 32,845,408 won, respectively, but as long as the above plaintiffs seek payment of only 32,825,510 won, respectively, through the reduction of claims by the above plaintiffs.

(f) the final award amount;

Each KRW 32,825,510 and each of them shall be damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 23, 2016, the day following the last deposit date of Defendant 1 to the day of full payment under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

2) Plaintiff 2 (final quoted amount)

The remainder of damages (i.e., KRW 48,00,000 - KRW 15,000 for additional payments - KRW 10,000 for additional payments - KRW 10,000 for additional payments) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 1, 2016 to the date following the due date of payment agreement between Plaintiff 2 and Defendant 1 (i.e., the date following the due date of payment agreement between Plaintiff 1) shall be KRW 23,00,000 for additional payments (i.e., KRW 15,00,000 for additional payments from Defendant 1 through the submission of the legal brief as of April 7, 2016). Therefore, the allegation to the effect that there is no need to claim the damages for delay from the date following the due date to the end of August 2016 to the date of the final appeal.

3) Plaintiff 3

A) Lease deposit;

48 million won

B) As of the first deposit date ( October 5, 2015)

(1) The amount appropriated for delay damages: 4,181,917 won (=48,00,000 won) ¡¿ 159 days / 365 days x 0.2)

② The amount appropriated for principal: 10,818,083 won (=15,00,000 won - 4,181,917 won)

③ Principal Balance: 37,181,917 won (=48,000,000 won - 10,818,083 won)

C) As of the second deposit date ( April 6, 2016)

(1) The amount appropriated for damages for delay: 3,738,509 won (=37,181,917 won) ¡¿ 184 days/36 days x 0.2)

② Amount appropriated for principal: 3,261,491 won (=7,000,000 won - 3,738,509 won)

③ The principal balance: 33,920,426 won (=37,181,917 won - 3,261,491 won)

D) As of the third deposit date ( June 22, 2016)

(1) The amount appropriated for damages for delay: 1,431,163 won (=33,920,426 won) ¡¿ 77 days/365 days 】 0.2)

② The amount appropriated for principal: 3,568,837 won (=5,000,000 won - 1,431,163 won)

③ The principal balance: 30,351,589 won (=3,920,426 won - 3,568,837 won)

E) Principal after the deduction

Accordingly, as long as the plaintiff 30,333,002 won is sought through the reduction of claim by the plaintiff 3,351,589 won, the principal amount after the deduction is made, and the plaintiff 3 seeks to pay less than 30,33,002 won.

(f) the final award amount;

30,33,002 won and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 23, 2016 to the date of full payment from June 23, 2016, which is the day following the last deposit date of Defendant 1.

4) Plaintiff 6

A) Lease deposit;

45 million won

B) As of the first deposit date ( October 5, 2015)

(1) The amount appropriated for delay damages: 3,920,547 won (=45,00,000 won) ¡¿ 159 days / 365 days x 0.2)

② The amount appropriated for principal: 11,079,453 won (=15,00,000 won - 3,920,547 won)

③ Principal Balance: 33,920,547 won (=45,000,000 won - 11,079,453 won)

C) As of the second deposit date ( April 6, 2016)

(1) The amount appropriated for damages for delay: 3,410,590 won (=3,920,547 won) ¡¿ 184 days/36 days x 0.2)

② The amount appropriated for principal: 3,589,410 won (=7,000,000 won - 3,410,590 won)

③ The principal balance: 30,31,137 won (=3,920,547 won - 3,589,410 won)

D) As of the third deposit date ( June 22, 2016)

(1) The amount appropriated for damages for delay: 1,279,724 won (=30,331,137 won x 77 days/365 days x 0.2)

② The amount appropriated for principal: 3,720,276 won (=5,000,000 won - 1,279,724 won)

③ Principal Balance: 26,610,861 won (=30,331,137 won - 3,720,276 won)

E) Principal after the deduction

Accordingly, as long as the plaintiff 6,594,241 won is claimed through the reduction of claims by the plaintiff 6,610,861 won, the principal amount of which is less than that of the plaintiff 6,594,241 won after the deduction.

(f) the final award amount;

26,594,241 won and the amount of delay damages calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from June 23, 2016 to the date of full payment under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the last deposit date of Defendant 1.

3. Determination as to claims against the remaining Defendants

A. Summary of the parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs

The remaining Defendants except Defendant 1 (referred to both as licensed real estate agents; hereinafter referred to as “licensed real estate agent Defendants”) neglected to confirm and explain the requirements to be performed by the licensed real estate agent while mediating the lease agreement of the instant multi-family house, thereby causing damages equivalent to the lease deposit. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable with Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1 to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages arising from the aforementioned tort.

2) Defendants as licensed real estate agents

A) At the time of concluding a lease agreement from the Defendants by a licensed real estate agent, the Plaintiffs concluded each lease agreement after hearing the explanation that the owners of the instant land and the instant multi-family house are different, and that there exists an agreement on the use and profit-making of the building between the owners. Therefore, the Defendants did not violate the duty of confirmation and explanation as a licensed real estate agent.

B) The liability for damages cannot be recognized solely on the ground that the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage itself was not issued.

C) Damage incurred to the Plaintiffs is due to Defendant 1 or Nonparty 1’s non-party 1’s rejection of the relevant dispute through mediation with the consent of the removal of the building without responsibility. It does not result in the violation of the duty of confirmation and explanation by the Defendants of licensed real estate agents.

B. Occurrence of liability for damages

1) The premised legal doctrine

According to Article 25(1) and (2) of the former Licensed Real Estate Agents’ Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 11943, Jul. 17, 2013; hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”), Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 16 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, a broker shall verify rights, such as ownership, lease on a deposit basis, mortgage, superficies, leases, etc. of an object of brokerage before the brokerage is completed, and explain such fact to the client, lessee, etc. of the object of brokerage before the brokerage is completed, and shall present evidentiary materials for such confirmation and explanation. To prepare a contract document after the brokerage is completed, he/she may request the document concerning the state of the object of brokerage to the client, lessee, etc. of the object of brokerage, and deliver the document stating the fact in the form of “the right relationship of the object of brokerage” to the client, etc. and deliver the document stating the fact in the form of “the object of brokerage and explanation of the object of brokerage.”

(ii) the facts of recognition

In addition to the above facts, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 11, defendant 1 and the plaintiffs on behalf of the non-party 1 can be acknowledged that the defendants of the real estate agent's act of brokerage was committed as follows at the time they concluded each lease contract with respect to the multi-family house of this case. The entries of Eul Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, which seem contrary thereto, are insufficient to reverse the above facts of recognition, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

A) For Plaintiffs 1, 3, and 4

(1) On April 30, 201, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, as of April 30, 201, as to the instant multi-family house, the phrase “rights relations, matters to be entered in the register” in the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage prepared and delivered to Plaintiff 1 at the time of mediating the conclusion of the lease agreement on the part of the attached drawing No. 1 among the instant multi-family house, is written by both the instant multi-family house and the owner of the instant land as Nonparty 1, and did not explain that the instant land is owned in the Ansan-gun-gun derivatives. The said lease

(2) On October 1, 2010, Defendant 5, at the time of mediating the conclusion of the lease agreement on the part of “Ma” as indicated in the separate drawing No. 1 among the instant multi-family houses, indicated in the “rights relationship, and entry in the registry” column of the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage prepared and delivered by Defendant 3 to Plaintiff 3 as of October 1, 201, both the instant multi-family house and the instant land owner are Nonparty 1, and did not explain that the instant land is owned in the course of Ayangyang-gun-gun. The said lease was renewed on the condition that the lease deposit was added to three

(3) On March 19, 201, when Defendant 2 and Defendant 6 mediated the conclusion of the lease agreement for the part regarding “B” as indicated in the annexed Form 1 among the instant multi-family houses, the “rights relations, matters to be entered in the register” of the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage prepared and delivered to Plaintiff 4 is indicated as Nonparty 1 in both the instant multi-family house and the instant land owner as Nonparty 1, and did not explain that the instant land is owned in Ansan-gun-gun. Moreover, on April 19, 2013, Defendant 7 mediated the conclusion of the lease renewal contract, which increases the lease deposit amount to KRW 5 million in the said lease agreement, but did not explain that the instant land is owned in Ansan-gun-gun-gun.

B) For Plaintiffs 7, 2, 5, and 6

(1) On May 14, 2009, Defendant 10 stated that the “rights relations, matters to be entered in the register” of the description for confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage prepared and delivered by Defendant 10 to Plaintiff 7 at the time of mediating the conclusion of the lease agreement on the instant multi-family house indicated in the annexed drawing No. 1 among the instant multi-family house is all indicated as Nonparty 1 as the owner of the instant multi-family house and the instant land. However, in the “matters of rights other than ownership” column, the “land ownership is different from the ownership of the building.” However, it appears that Nonparty 1 did not explain what rights he/she owns during the instant multi-family house in relation to the instant multi-family house. The said lease agreement was renewed under the condition to increase the lease deposit in KRW 5 million after the termination of the lease contract period, and was renewed again under the same condition after the termination

(2) On March 28, 2011, Defendant 4 stated “the relationship of rights, matters to be entered in the register,” in the description of confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage prepared and delivered by Plaintiff 2 at the time of mediating the conclusion of the lease agreement on the instant multi-family house indicated in the separate drawing Nos. 1 “B” as indicated in both the instant multi-family house and the owner of the instant land, as Nonparty 1, and in the column of “the matters concerning rights, such as the relation of rights, the actual relation of rights, or the right that has not been publicly announced,” the phrase “no matter (the building is subject to individual registration because it is the land before the present state).” However, it appears that Nonparty 1 did not explain how the owner of the instant land owns any right during the instant multi-family house in relation to the instant multi-family house. The said lease agreement was renewed under the condition that the lease deposit amount is increased by five million won after the termination

(3) On February 28, 2012, Defendant 2 and Defendant 8: (a) at the time of mediating the conclusion of a lease agreement with regard to “g” portion as indicated in the annexed Form 1 among the instant multi-family houses, the “rights relationship, matters to be entered in the register” in the description of confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage prepared and delivered by Plaintiff 5 to Plaintiff 5 is indicated that the ownership of the instant land is between Anyang-gun and Yangyang-gun. However, while explaining that the statutory superficies for a building was established, the said Defendants did not state any indication in the “rights relationship, other rights than ownership” column; (b) the said lease was renewed on the same condition after the termination

(4) On August 4, 2011, Defendant 9: (a) explained to Plaintiff 6 that the instant land was owned by Ansan-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-gun-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type

3) Determination as to the establishment of liability for damages

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiffs in paragraph (2) (A) appears to have recognized that both the instant multi-family house and the instant land were owned by Nonparty 1.

Meanwhile, although the Plaintiffs described in paragraph (b) of the same Article knew or could have known the difference between the owner of the instant multi-family house and the instant land, it can be deemed that the conclusion of each lease agreement was caused as a result of not explaining, or explaining and verifying, what is the rights or legitimate source of right to use the instant land by Nonparty 1.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and legal principles, the Defendants should have provided data necessary to determine whether the lessee can normally use and benefit from the leased object, and whether the deposit can be repaid after the termination of the lease contract. Therefore, the Defendants should have verified and explained not only the relevant multi-family house but also the right relationship, including the ownership of the instant land where the multi-family house is located through the real estate registry, etc. In the event that the owners discovered different points, they did not follow the confirmation and explanation of the right relationship indicated in the real estate registration book, but also have the right to use and benefit from the instant land to Nonparty 1 or his agent, the lessee, instead of the confirmation and explanation of the right relationship indicated in the real estate registration book, but also have the right to use and benefit from the instant land. Such right is whatever (e.g., the timing, termination date, scope, etc. of the lease) and explain it to the lessee, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs did not have any obligation to remove or remove the leased object or to obtain compensation for damages arising from the de facto multi-family housing transaction agent’s failure to do so.

4) Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the above Defendants cannot claim damages against the above Defendants on the ground that each of the lease agreements arranged by them was renewed under a new lease agreement. However, in light of the fact that both the newly concluded or renewed lease agreements between the Plaintiffs and Nonparty 1 were concluded based on the previous lease agreement concluded by the commission of the Defendants by a licensed real estate agent, excluding Defendant 7, and the parties are identical to the parties, and the renewal of the lease agreement is made based on the previous lease agreement, barring any special circumstances, as seen later, apart from the fact that the increased portion of the lease deposit in the lease renewal agreement can be excluded from the scope of liability, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

In addition, Defendant 7 asserts that the lease contract he mediated is not a new contract but a new contract term is extended for the previous lease contract, and only an increase in the lease deposit is liable to Defendant 7, who is not liable to the above, or the increased deposit is liable to the above five million won. However, since the situation at the time of renewal and renewal of the lease contract is not always the same at the time of conclusion of the previous lease contract, it cannot be viewed that there is no obligation of confirmation and explanation as a licensed real estate agent as seen above even in the case of the licensed real estate agent mediating the former lease contract renewal, and ② The lease contract arranged by Defendant 7 is not limited to the value equivalent to five million won, which is the increased amount from the previous lease deposit, not limited to the value equivalent to five million won, but to the total amount of the lease deposit. ③ The payment criteria for the licensed real estate agent fees for the licensed real estate agent is also based on five million won, not on five million won, but on five million won, not on the renewal of the lease contract.

C. Scope of liability for damages

1) Damages by Plaintiff

Furthermore, in light of the overall purport of the argument as seen earlier, the amount of damages for each plaintiff caused by the intent or negligence of the Defendants of licensed real estate agents is as follows.

① The Plaintiff 1’s amount of damages to be borne by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 is KRW 50 million as the lease deposit.

② Plaintiff 2’s amount of damages to be borne by Defendant 4 is KRW 43 million prior to the renewal of the contract. Plaintiff 2 asserts to the effect that the total amount of KRW 48 million of the lease deposit of the newly renewed lease contract is the amount of damages. However, in the case of the increased lease deposit KRW 5 million, Defendant 4’s position who participated in the conclusion of the initial lease contract seems to constitute not ordinary damages but special damages. There is no evidence to prove that there is a possibility of predictability with Defendant 4, 43 million, and thus, the assertion regarding the increased lease deposit exceeds KRW 43 million cannot be accepted.

③ The amount of damages of Plaintiff 3, who is liable for Defendant 5, is also KRW 45 million, which is the deposit for lease before renewal for the same reason as described in paragraph (2).

④ The amount of damages of Plaintiff 4, who is liable for Defendant 2 and Defendant 6, shall also be KRW 45 million, which is the deposit for the lease before renewal for the same reason as described in paragraph (2). However, in relation to Defendant 7, the amount of damages shall be KRW 50 million, including the increased deposit for the lease, on the ground as seen earlier.

⑤ The Plaintiff 5’s amount of damages to be borne by Defendant 2 and Defendant 8 is KRW 50 million as the lease deposit.

④ The amount of damages of Plaintiff 6, who is liable to Defendant 9, is KRW 45 million.

7) The amount of damages of Plaintiff 7, who is liable for Defendant 10, shall be KRW 45 million prior to renewal for the same reason as described in paragraph (2).

2) As to the assertion that the amount received from entertainment was deducted from entertainment

On the other hand, the Defendants, a licensed real estate agent other than Defendant 4, received KRW 4 million from the Human Library, instead of leaving the instant multi-family house, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs asserted that the damages of each of the Plaintiffs should be deducted by KRW 4 million. However, even if the Plaintiffs received each payment of KRW 4 million, the said amount cannot be deemed as having the nature of deducting the said amount as a offsetting profit and loss. The Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3) Limitation on liability for damages

A) Where a real estate transaction party delegates a broker to a real estate transaction transaction, the broker is obligated to investigate and confirm the relationship of rights of the object of brokerage in accordance with the purport of delegation, and if the broker violates his/her duty of care, he/she shall be liable to compensate for the damage incurred therefrom. However, the broker’s responsibility to investigate and confirm the transaction relation which the transaction party itself bears to the broker is not wholly attributable to the broker. Therefore, in mediating real estate transaction, if the broker fails to perform his/her duty to investigate and confirm the relationship of rights of the object of brokerage in order to determine the scope of compensation for the damage incurred to the broker, it shall be deemed that the broker is negligent in investigating and verifying the transaction relation, and if it is recognized that the scope of compensation for the damage incurred to the broker was caused by the failure to perform his/her duty to investigate and confirm the relationship of rights of the object of brokerage, it shall be deemed that the client, who is the victim, has been negligent, and it shall be deemed reasonable in light of the basic principle of the damage compensation system (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da6965

B) In the case of the Plaintiffs listed in paragraph 2-A (Plaintiff 1, 3, and 4), notwithstanding the status of the parties to enter into a lease contract, the relationship of rights to the land of this case was not confirmed by themselves notwithstanding the status of the parties to enter into the lease contract. In addition, even though the above Plaintiffs have to have confirmed their market price of the apartment house of this case or the financial status of the lessor and determined the possibility of returning the lease deposit, they have been negligent in doing so and have concluded the lease contract of this case with the belief of the broker only. Such negligence of the above Plaintiffs is deemed to have a substantial cause for the occurrence and expansion of damages. Therefore, it is reasonable to limit the liability of Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 to 50% of each damages amount. Meanwhile, in the case of Defendant 7, its liability for damages extends to the total amount of the lease deposit including the increased lease deposit, as seen earlier. However, in addition to Defendant 7’s negligence, as well as Defendant 7’s previous real estate agent’s liability for renewal of the lease contract.

C) Meanwhile, it appears that the plaintiffs in paragraph (b) b (b) (Plaintiffs 2, 5, 6, and 7) themselves could have confirmed the difference between the apartment house in this case and the owner of the land in this case. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to conclude that the above plaintiffs, as described in paragraph (b) of this Article, requested specific evidentiary materials against Defendant 10, 4, 2, 8, 9, or Nonparty 1, who was the owner of the instant land in relation to the ownership of the instant apartment house, or did not confirm the legal relationship, etc. on the instant land by themselves, as in each of the plaintiffs in this case, as described in paragraph (b) of this Article, after confirming the market price of the instant apartment house or the lessor's financial status, and making a decision on the possibility of returning the lease deposit based on this determination. Nevertheless, it was reasonable to conclude the lease contract by the broker only for the horses of the instant case, and that there were considerable damages related to Defendant 100% of the above plaintiffs, as well as the above damages related to Defendant 20.

D) The amount of damages for each Plaintiff reflecting such limitation of liability is as follows.

① Plaintiff 1: 25 million won (==50 million won x 0.5)

② Plaintiff 2: 12.9 million won (=43 million won x 0.3)

③ Plaintiff 3: 22.5 million won (=45 million won x 0.5)

④ Plaintiff 4: 22.5 million won (=45 million won x 0.5)

However, in the case of Defendant 7, the amount of KRW 15 million (i.e., increased lease deposit) is limited to KRW 50 million, including increased lease deposit x 0.3).

⑤ Plaintiff 5: 15 million won (==50 million won 】 0.3)

② Plaintiff 6: 13.5 million won (=45 million won x 0.3)

vii Plaintiff 7: 13.5 million won (=45 million won x 0.3)

4) Mutual aid from Defendant 1’s deposit amount

A) The Defendants asserted that, as seen earlier, Defendant 1’s deposit and repayment should be deducted from the amount of the Defendants’ damages liability of licensed real estate agents.

B) After the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, Defendant 1 deposited or repaid part of the amount of the damages liability as stated in the table of Paragraph 2-B, and the fact that the Plaintiffs received it is as seen earlier.

However, it is reasonable to view that the above damages liability of the Defendants against the Plaintiffs by a licensed real estate agent is in a so-called quasi-joint and several liability relationship where the other party’s obligation is extinguished if one of the other’s obligation is extinguished due to repayment, etc. with respect to the damages liability arising out of separate causes or the same economic purpose as that of the Defendant 1 or Nonparty 1’s obligation with the same economic purpose. As such, in light of the purport of the quasi-joint and several liability relationship, where part of the other obligation is extinguished due to repayment, etc. of a large amount of obligation, the first extinguished part of the obligation should be deemed not to be jointly and severally liable with other debtors, but the portion of obligation solely assumed by the Defendants, in order to ensure the payment of the parties’ intent and the full amount of obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da67376, Mar. 14, 200; 2012Na16898, Jan. 23, 2013).

C) Examining whether to deduct in accordance with the above criteria, in the case of Plaintiffs 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (No. 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (No. 1, No. 2, 4, 6, and 7) whose amount of debt is larger than Defendant 1’s “total amount of deposit” as indicated in the following table, the amount of debt owed by the Defendants of real estate agents corresponding thereto cannot be deemed extinguished or deducted. In this case, Defendant 1’s total amount of deposit is first appropriated and extinguished for the portion of Defendant 1’s sole obligation.

Defendant 1 2, 00, 00, 005, 00, 005, 00, 005, 00, 005, 00, 005, 00, 100, 000, 005, 00, 000, 100, 00, 100, 50,000, 10,000, 50, 100, 100, 50, 100, 50, 100, 200, 205, 100, 100, 100, 100, 50, 100, 2005, 222,50, 500, 500, 100, 500, 500, 500, 500, 2005, 2007

Furthermore, in the case of the Plaintiff 1, the principal of the “amount to be borne by himself” by Defendant 1 (25 million won) is less than the principal of the “amount to be deposited” by Defendant 1 (27 million won). However, if the principal and damages for delay corresponding to the amount to be borne by Defendant 1 are appropriated for the amount of the said deposit, it is insufficient to extinguish the total amount of the amount to be borne by Defendant 1 solely, even in this case.

In other words, as of the date of the first deposit ( October 5, 2015), the portion equivalent to KRW 25 million out of the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 30, 2015 to October 5, 2015, calculated by paying the first deposit of KRW 15 million and the amount equivalent to KRW 15 million out of the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 2,178,082 per annum from April 30, 2015 to KRW 25,000 per annum 25,000 per annum 159,365 x 0.2) and the damages for delay of KRW 12,821,918 (=15,000,000 - 2,178,082) shall be solely extinguished (i.e., the portion equivalent to KRW 18,208,1208,200).

② As of the date of the second deposit (as of April 6, 2016), the portion equivalent to KRW 12,178,082 of Defendant 1’s sole share of Defendant 1’s sole share of KRW 7 million and the damages for delay calculated by the rate of KRW 20% per annum from October 6, 2015 to April 6, 2016 shall be terminated first. As such, the portion equivalent to KRW 1,224,462 (i.e., KRW 12,178,082 x 12,366 x 184/366 x 0.2 x 0.i.e., KRW 7,00,00 - 1,224,462) on the principal amount of KRW 5,75,538 (i.e., the sole share of Defendant 1’s sole share of KRW 6,45,275,278,57

③ As of the third deposit date (as of June 22, 2016), the portion equivalent to Defendant 1’s principal amounting to KRW 6,402,544, and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from April 7, 2016 to June 22, 2016, out of the amount to be borne by Defendant 1’s sole deposit of KRW 5 million, shall be terminated first. As such, the portion equivalent to KRW 270,134 (i.e., KRW 6,402,54 x 77/365 x 0.2) and 4,729,866 (i.e., KRW 5,00,00 - KRW 270,134) were extinguished solely.

④ Accordingly, even if reflecting all deposits, Defendant 1’s sole share of Defendant 1 remains at KRW 1,672,678 (i.e., KRW 6,402,544 - 4,729,866). Ultimately, each deposit made by Defendant 1 with Defendant 1 is insufficient to extinguish the total amount of Defendant 1’s sole share of charges.

Finally, in the case of Plaintiff 3, the principal of “the single-paid amount” borne by Defendant 1 (25.5 million won) is less than the principal of Defendant 1’s “the total amount of deposits (27 million won).” However, as in the case of Plaintiff 1, the said deposit amount is appropriated for the principal of the sole-paid amount and the damages for delay thereof, the said deposit amount is insufficient to extinguish the total amount of Defendant 1’s sole-paid amount.

D) Ultimately, the Defendants’ assertion of the Defendants’ mutual aid cannot be accepted.

D. Sub-committee

Accordingly, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 are as follows: (i) KRW 25 million to Plaintiff 1; (ii) KRW 12.9 million to Plaintiff 2; (iii) Defendant 5 is as to Plaintiff 3; (iv) KRW 2.5 million to Plaintiff 4; (ii) Defendant 2, Defendant 6 is as to Plaintiff 2; (iii) KRW 15 million to Defendants 2, Defendant 6, and each of the above amounts; (iv) Defendant 7 is as to KRW 15 million to Plaintiff 5; (v) Defendant 2 and Defendant 8 is as to each of the above amounts; (vii) Defendant 9 is as to KRW 13.5 million to Plaintiff 6; and (vii) Defendant 10,000 won to Plaintiff 7; and (v) is as to whether the Defendants’ obligation to pay damages for delay from April 30, 2015 to 206 per annum of the first instance judgment as to each of the instant multi-family houses is reasonable.

Furthermore, as seen earlier, the Defendants’ above liability for damages by a licensed real estate agent is independent of the damages liability of Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1, as separate from the damages liability of Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1, or as to the overlapping part of the same economic purpose, if one of the obligations of the other is extinguished due to repayment, etc., the other party’s obligation is also extinguished. Therefore, the Defendants of licensed real estate agents are liable to pay the above amount to the respective Plaintiffs.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff 1's claim against the defendant 1, 2, and 3, the plaintiff 2's claim against the defendant 1, and 4, the plaintiff 3's claim against the defendant 1, 7, 2, and 6, the plaintiff 5's claim against the defendant 1, 2, and 8, the plaintiff 6's claim against the defendant 1, 2, and 9, the plaintiff 7's claim against the defendant 1, 9, and the plaintiff 1, and 10 shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and each other's claim shall be dismissed without any justifiable reason. The judgment of the court of first instance is not only unfair in part of the conclusion, but also it is so decided that the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant 1 and 5, the remainder except the part against the co-defendant 1 among the judgment of first instance shall be modified as above. It is so decided as per Disposition 6).

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Han Chang-hun (Presiding Judge)

(1) Meanwhile, around August 16, 2016, Defendant 1 deposited an additional amount of KRW 5 million on or after the date of the closing of argument in the current trial. However, this is a situation after the closing of argument, as long as the Plaintiffs do not seem to have received the said deposit, such circumstance shall not be reflected in or considered in the judgment of the current trial.

(2) In calculating damages for delay in this part, the Plaintiffs deemed the eligible period as 76 days from April 6, 2016 to June 21, 2016 (if so, the eligible number of days is 77 days, and thus, “76 days” appears to be an error in the calculation of the Plaintiffs). However, it is evident that the eligible period is 77 days from April 7, 2016 to June 22, 2016, which is the date following the second deposit date, from April 7, 2016 to June 22, 2016, and the pertinent part of damages for delay calculated as above.

(3) The above Plaintiffs seek for the payment of damages for delay from June 22, 2016 through the amendment of the purport of the claim in the trial. However, the initial date of the damages for delay shall be June 23, 2016, which is the day following the date of the final deposit. Thus, the allegation on the part that goes beyond this shall not be accepted. The corresponding part of the above paragraph (3) shall also be same.

(1) If a broker causes property damage to a party to a transaction by intention or negligence in carrying out brokerage, he/she shall be liable to compensate for such damage.

5) In comparison with the case of Plaintiff 1, it is clear that the full amount of Defendant 1’s sole share of Defendant 1’s deposit and its temporary deposit are the same while Defendant 1’s sole share of Defendant 3 (25 million won) is more than the case of Plaintiff 1 (25 million won). Therefore, it is clear that the total amount of Defendant 1’s sole share of the deposit cannot be extinguished notwithstanding the above deposit.

6) As to the part of the total litigation cost incurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1, even though the amount of award against the defendant 1 was reduced compared to the judgment of the court of first instance, this is due to the defendant 1’s deposit or repayment of part of the amount of debt only during the trial, and accordingly, the plaintiffs’ claim was reduced. Thus, it shall be determined at the expense of the defendant 1 pursuant to the proviso of Articles 99 and 101 of the Civil Procedure