손해배상
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B was a person who carried on real estate brokerage business under the trade name “F” in Ansan-si E, Ansan-si, and C assisted Defendant B’s brokerage business.
The defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Association") is a mutual aid business entity established to guarantee the liability for damages to be borne by the parties to a transaction by causing property damage caused by intention or negligence by the mutual aid holders who are real estate brokers while performing real estate brokerage.
B. Around January 1, 2009, the Defendant Association entered into a mutual aid agreement with Defendant B to pay compensation in accordance with the terms and conditions of mutual aid in cases where a real estate intermediary engaged in real estate brokerage by setting the period of mutual aid from January 1, 2009 to December 9, 2009, where property damage occurs to a transaction party intentionally or by negligence, the Defendant Association entered into a mutual aid agreement to pay compensation in accordance with the terms and conditions of mutual aid for such damage.
C. On June 26, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased the sales price of KRW 72,00,000,000 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) of the members of Ansan-si, Seosan-si, a member G 496 square meters (the area of public merit is. The actual area is 94 square meters, as seen earlier), and of KRW 102 square meters prior to H (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).
Defendant B mediated the instant sales contract (at the time, the Plaintiff paid to Defendant B a brokerage commission of KRW 2,00,000), and at the time, the Plaintiff explained that the Plaintiff was planning to purchase the instant land to build a new garden and build a garden by purchasing the instant land to Defendant B, a brokerage assistant of Defendant B.
C Around the time of entering into the instant contract, it explained that the Plaintiff’s husband may obtain a housing construction permit by explaining the location, boundary, and use status, etc. of each of the instant real estate along with K, each of the instant real estate.
Defendant B did not specifically verify the status of each of the instant real estate at a direct site in the process of mediating the instant contract, and the instant case.