손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim added by this court are dismissed, respectively.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. On August 26, 2015, the gist of the cause of the claim, the Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the responsibility of the nominal owner of the Plaintiff’s name, etc., and filed a lawsuit for damages claim (hereinafter “prior lawsuit”) with Suwon District Court Branch Decision 2014Gadan5953 (hereinafter “prior lawsuit”). On August 26, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall jointly and severally with C pay KRW 30 million to the Defendant and its delay damages.”
Although the Plaintiff appealed in the above judgment, the appellate court (U.S. District Court 2015Na31848) rendered a judgment on May 27, 2016 that "the Plaintiff and the Defendant, each of whom are nominal users, shall return 30 million won and delay damages therefor to the Defendant for unjust enrichment." The appellate court rejected the Plaintiff's assertion that "the Defendant knew that C was qualified and the Plaintiff borrowed the Plaintiff's trade name and name at the time of the agreement for brokerage, and entered into an arrangement for the sale of real estate with the Defendant by using it, and thereby, entered into the brokerage commission agreement with the Defendant. The above brokerage agreement is null and void in violation of Article 33 subparagraph 3 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act."
As to this, the Plaintiff filed an appeal (2016Da27818), but was dismissed on September 30, 2016.
The Defendant, while having known the fact that C was operating an office by lending the name of the Plaintiff’s licensed real estate agent, issued false evidence to the contrary that C had known the fact that C had known that it was operating the office, and caused the court to impose a judgment that recognized the Plaintiff’s liability of KRW 30 million on the Plaintiff as above. The Defendant suffered property damage and mental suffering due to the tort committed by the Defendant’s fraud.