[손해배상(기)][공2001.2.15.(124),351]
[1] Criteria for determining whether an act of brokerage under Article 19 (2) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act constitutes "act of brokerage"
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that where Gap, a broker, provided Eul's office as a place for brokerage of Eul's office, received money from the parties to the transaction to deliver the refund of the lease deposit to the former lessee while mediating the lease contract at Eul's office, and embezzled it, Gap is liable for compensation for damages suffered by the parties to the transaction pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act
[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act provides that "a broker shall act as a broker for the purchase, sale, exchange, lease, or other acquisition, loss, or modification of rights between the parties to a transaction concerning the object of brokerage" and Article 19 (2) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act provides that "the broker shall be liable for the damage of property when he/she provides his/her office as a place of another person's brokerage and causes damage to the parties to a transaction by providing it to a third person's place of brokerage." Thus, in light of the purport of the legal provisions aimed at the protection of the parties to a transaction, the issue of whether an act is an act of brokerage shall be determined by whether it is objectively deemed an act of brokerage by social norms, in view of the purpose of the legal provisions aimed at protecting the parties
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that where Gap, a broker, provided Eul's office as a place for brokerage of Eul's office, received money from the parties to the transaction to request the former lessee to deliver the refund amount of the lease deposit and embezzled it, Gap is liable for the damages suffered by the parties to the transaction pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 5957 of Mar. 31, 199)
[1] Articles 2 subparag. 1 and 19(2) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 5957 of Mar. 31, 199) / [2] Article 19(2) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 5957 of Mar. 31, 199)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da47261 delivered on September 29, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3600) Supreme Court Decision 98Do1914 delivered on July 23, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1822)
Name of Gangwon-gu
For internal use
Busan District Court Decision 99Na18609 delivered on July 20, 2000
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act provides that "a broker shall act as a broker for the purchase, sale, exchange, lease, or other acquisition, loss, or modification of rights between the parties to a transaction concerning the object of brokerage" and Article 19 (2) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 5957 of Mar. 31, 1999; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "the broker shall be liable for damages if the broker causes property damage to the parties to the transaction by providing his office to another place of brokerage of another person." Thus, in light of the purport of the legal provisions aimed at the protection of the parties to the transaction, the determination of which act constitutes brokerage shall be made by objectively considering the act of the broker, which is objectively deemed to be an act for the brokerage and mediation of transaction by social norms (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da47261, Sep. 29, 195; 98Do1914, Jul. 23, 199).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the defendant, the broker, provided his office to a place for brokerage of the co-defendants of the court of first instance, instead of exclusively using his office to his brokerage business, and the plaintiff, as to the apartment of this case in the judgment of the court of first instance, the termination date of the lease contract with the non-party joint defendants of the court of first instance as to the non-party's apartment of this case in the judgment of the court of first instance, which was formed by the mediation of the co-defendants of the court of first instance, requested co-defendants of the court of first instance to mediate a new lease contract, and on June 13, 1998, delivered 30,000 won, which is part of the lease deposit to the non-party company, to the non-party company, and delivered to the co-defendants of the court of first instance on the non-party company, but the co-defendants of the court of first instance recognized the remaining 27,000,00 won.
According to the records, the plaintiff requested co-defendants of the court of first instance to mediate the new lease agreement on the apartment of this case at the defendant's office. On June 4, 1998, the plaintiff entered into a new lease agreement with the non-party's second-class co-defendants of the court of first instance with the non-party's second-class co-defendants of the court of first instance with the lease deposit amount of KRW 55,00,000,000, which was paid from the above second-classs of the court of first instance and delivered to the non-party co-defendants of the court of first instance while allowing the non-party to deliver it to the non-party company, the co-defendants of the court of first instance to embezzlement some of the amount as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the above act of the co-defendants of the court of first instance constitutes a case where the plaintiff, the party to the transaction, while acting as a broker
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)