[손해배상(기)청구사건][하집1991(1),175]
A case recognizing liability under Article 24 of the Commercial Act to a licensed real estate agent who does not participate in all the procedures for permission or operation after having another person operate the real estate brokerage business jointly with another person under his own name.
If the Defendant (licensed Real Estate Agent) was to operate the real estate brokerage business in his own name with the Nonparty, and was not involved in the business procedure or operation thereof, and the Nonparty was in custody of the money for the purchase of the building by misrepresenting the Defendant and soliciting the Plaintiff during his business as a down payment, but the purpose of the purchase was not achieved, the Defendant permitted the Nonparty to engage in the business using his name or trade name. Thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to return the said money to the Plaintiff, who traded the business by misunderstanding himself as the business owner, pursuant to Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
Article 24 of the Commercial Act
Kim Jong-man
Defendant, appellant and appellant
Busan District Court Branch of the District Court (90 Gohap552)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,00,000,000, which is the primary liability of the nominal lender, and the amount at the rate of KRW 25,000 per annum from the following day of the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the date of full payment.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.
In light of the above facts, the plaintiff is not entitled to permission for the business of the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 1's certificate of licensed real estate agent, the 13 through 15's testimony of the court below, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 6's 1 and 1. The non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1'
Thus, as long as the sales contract of the above apartment was not lawfully concluded, the non-party 1 is obligated to return the above amount of KRW 15,000,000 to the plaintiff, and the defendant also allowed the non-party 1 to carry on the business by using his name or trade name, and therefore, the plaintiff who trades himself as the owner of the business is jointly and severally liable with the non-party 1 in accordance with Article 24 of the Commercial Act.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's damage is caused by his own negligence, and therefore, the defendant's negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of damages. However, the defendant's liability for the above recognition is the obligation to return the deposit in accordance with the contract, and it is not the obligation to compensate for damages due to the non-performance of the obligation, and the
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant for the payment of the above 15,00,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 25,000 percent per annum from March 4, 1990 to the date of full payment, which is obvious in the record that it is the next day for the delivery of the complaint of this case, shall be accepted. Since the original judgment with this conclusion is legitimate, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as without merit, and the burden of the appeal shall be decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Judges Gangnam-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim Dong-ho Kim