공제금 등 청구의 소
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. The reasoning for this part of the facts is that the court stated this part of the judgment of the first instance as follows: “The confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage (Evidence A (Evidence A (Evidence 2) delivered to the Plaintiff at the time of brokerage)” in the second and 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the fact that “the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage (Evidence A (Evidence 2) delivered to the Plaintiff at the time of brokerage) was stated as “the level of KRW 100 million”, and thus, it is identical to the part of “1. Basic Facts” among the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, thereby citing it in accordance with
2. The grounds for this part of the assertion and judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the fourth through fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows, since the part of “2. argument and judgment” among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of “2. Formal assertion and judgment”, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article
[Supplementary part]
Meanwhile, in a case where a broker fails to perform the duty of investigation and confirmation in the course of a real estate transaction brokerage to determine the scope of compensation for the damage incurred to the broker, if the broker neglected his/her duty of care to investigate and confirm the transaction relation, and the cause of occurrence and expansion of the damage is recognized, it shall be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the client, and it shall be reasonable to set off the negligence in light of the basic principle of the damage compensation system, which
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da69654, Nov. 29, 2012). In light of such legal doctrine, a large number of lessees may exist in the case of a public health unit and a multi-family house. Since the lease status of a prior lessee is not indicated in the real estate registration book, in cases of entering into a lease agreement on a multi-family house, prior lease agreement would lead to the existence of a risk that the deposit for lease would not be recovered due to the prior lease agreement, and