2. C

A. Upon the preliminary claim added at the trial, the Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 10,000,000 won and the amount equivalent to each of the 15% interest per annum from June 14, 2016 to October 24, 2017, respectively, from June 16, 2016 to October 24, 2017, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. All of the plaintiff's remaining claims and the plaintiff's claims that were primarily changed in the preliminary trial are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

A. The primary purport of the claim

The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 20,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from April 10, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the application for modification of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

B. Preliminary purport of claim

In electively, the Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff KRW 20.00,000 and the Plaintiff’s share on April 2008.

11. From April 10, 2008 to the delivery date of a copy of the application form for modification of the purport of the claim of this case, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,00,00 and its corresponding amount, from April 10, 2008 to the delivery date of a copy of the application form for modification of the purport of this case and the cause of the claim of this case, 5% per annum, and 0% from

Until the day, 15% of the amount is paid by each rate of 15% per annum (the plaintiff claimed damages for illegal acts in the first instance trial and the unjust enrichment selectively, but changed the damages for illegal acts in the first instance trial to the preliminary claim, and added the damages for the nonperformance to the preliminary claim).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 20 million won with 5% interest per annum from April 1, 2008 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

A. Conclusion of investment agreements between D and E

1) D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) is a company that receives fees from each of the above regional housing associations (hereinafter referred to as “F apartment”) in Seodaemun-gu Seoul and the regional housing association in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “G apartment”) and vicariously executes its work.

2) On August 10, 2007, D entered into an agreement with E, an attorney-at-law affiliated with H, a law firm, to pay KRW 100 million equivalent to the principal amount of investment until October 10, 2007, which is two months after E, and KRW 100 million equivalent to the investment proceeds until February 10, 2008, which is six months after E.D entered into an agreement to pay KRW 100 million. However, D, as a security for the above investment proceeds, issued to E, in full payment of the balance of KRW 33 square units and KRW 33 square units, G apartment units, and KRW 33 square units within the above two months, upon completion of payment of the principal amount of KRW 100 million, KRW 100 million,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000).

3) Ultimately, D received an investment amount of KRW 400 million in total from E four times in accordance with the instant investment agreement. At each time it receives an investment over four occasions, E shall be limited to KRW 89,100,000,000 for G 33 square-type 2 households, G, 33 square-type 2 households, and KRW 52,80,000,000 for F apartment-type 33 square-type 2 households.

The full payment of the cost (264 million won x2) was made, and it is possible to change the name thereafter, and D actively cooperates with it. D also issued to E a "contract for the transfer of the ownership of each of the above apartment units with respect to the 16 households of the above apartment units" four times. In addition, D also issued to E a contract for the transfer of ownership of the above company, a receipt for each of the above apartment units in which the applicant is a disturbance, a " receipt for each of the above apartment units in which the applicant is a disturbance," a "G basic member," and a "written promise to join the regional housing association."

B. Conclusion of the instant sales contract

1) Co., Ltd. I (hereinafter referred to as “I”) is a company engaged in real estate sales business, sales agency business, related educational business, consulting business, provision of information, etc., Defendant B is a representative (in-house director) of I, Defendant C is a director of I, and Defendant C is a director of I.

2) Defendant B opened a next camera on the Internet of “J” and held lectures, etc. related to the investment in real estate. The Plaintiff is a person who was working as a member of the said Kapet from the mid-2007 Police Officer and participated in on-site answers, special lectures, etc.

3) After the conclusion of the instant investment agreement, E requested I or the Defendants, etc. to mediate the sale of each apartment to dispose of F and G apartment units from the date of concluding the instant investment agreement.

4) On February 2008, the Plaintiff participated in the real estate-related lectures of Defendant B, which was held by the “JJ”, and sought explanation about the right to occupy G apartment, and then sought advice from the Defendants on the sale of the said right to occupy G apartment. At the time, the Defendants, a incumbent attorney-at-law, acquired the right to occupy the Plaintiff in lieu of D. E already owns a house and seeks to secure cash for the purpose of avoiding tax issues. E already owns a house and sells it at a higher price than at the market price. It is safe for an incumbent attorney-at-law to sell it.” The Plaintiff recommended the purchase of the said right to occupy several times under the brokerage of the Defendants.

In order to purchase the above occupancy right, the defendants should pay 20 million won as a brokerage fee.

5) On April 1, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C, a person in charge of the duties of the Defendants, to purchase the occupancy right (A-098, hereinafter referred to as “the occupancy right of this case”) of G 33 square-type 1 household in G apartment units (A-098, hereinafter referred to as “the purchase contract of this case”) with the price of 340 million won, and paid the remainder of 30 million won on April 10, 2008 to E, with the payment of the remainder of 40 million won for the same day. E received the remainder from the Plaintiff, and issued the receipt to the Plaintiff for the transfer contract of G 33 square-type apartment units issued by the Plaintiff, and the applicant column received KRW 45,500,000 as the purchase price of the apartment units and the purchase price of the apartment units.

6) Meanwhile, upon request from E for brokerage, I or the Defendants arranged 7 sales contracts for F andG occupancy rights, including the instant sales contract, as listed below. From E per sales contract case, F apartment is KRW 20 million in the case of F apartment and KRW 20 million in the case of G apartment and KRW 20 million in the case of G apartment.

A person shall be appointed.

7) On April 10, 2008, the Plaintiff paid the remainder to Defendant C with the brokerage commission for the instant transaction.

(c) the occurrence and progress of the dispute;

1) In around 2009, the Plaintiff met D’s director under the contact with the Defendants. At this time, S supplement the Plaintiff’s personal information to the applicant column for membership of G Basic Union members held by the Plaintiff, and returned the said application to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff’s name was still not entered in the register of union members.

2) On April 201, the Plaintiff demanded D to recognize the status of a member as a buyer of the foregoing G apartment unit as a buyer of the foregoing G apartment unit. However, D rejected the Plaintiff’s submission on the ground that the documents of G basic members held by the Plaintiff are merely a check, and that the Plaintiff was not registered on the list of members.

3) On May 201, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E for the return of the purchase price under Seoul Central District Court 201Gahap47553 (hereinafter “the instant lawsuit”). On May 8, 2012, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against this, and the court of appeal (Seoul High Court 2012Na45186) collected “E, September 27, 2013, at least KRW 760,000,000,000,000 from the investment principal and revenue of D, and collected at least KRW 760,000,000,000,000 from D’s internal relations with D, without notifying the Plaintiff of the right to move in the instant case, and thereafter, the instant contract was revoked on the ground of deception, and the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered a final judgment as to the Plaintiff’s damages for delay on the ground that E’s return of unjust enrichment was a final and conclusive judgment of KRW 3.16.1 million.

【Unsatisfied Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 9, 10, and 12 (including branch numbers), each statement in these courts, significant facts in this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. Summary of the parties' arguments

1) Plaintiff

The Defendants made a false statement to the effect that the Plaintiff’s right to move into the instant case was a safe thing in which the Plaintiff acquired ownership in return for legal services, and that E did not notify the Plaintiff of the right to move into the instant case, despite being aware that E was provided with the right to move into the instant case as a security for investment. Therefore, the Defendants jointly are obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of money equivalent to KRW 20 million of brokerage commission paid to the Plaintiff as compensation for tort and damages for delay.

2) The Defendants

E was aware that the right to move into the instant case was received as a substitute from D, and that E was provided as a security for investment. Even if tort liability is recognized, the extinctive prescription period already expired (the extinctive prescription defense was limited to Defendant C only).

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, ① according to the contract for the transfer of the shares held by the Company, E from D, stating that E paid 890 million won to the two households in G apartment units and was supplied with the shares held by the Company.

In light of the fact that E has the right to move in as a security for investment, and the fact that E actually received the balance from the Plaintiff and delivered G basic members to the Plaintiff, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants deceptioned the Plaintiff by not notifying the Plaintiff of the fact that the right to move in in in the instant sales contract was provided as a security for investment, even if the Plaintiff knew that the right to move in in the instant sales contract was offered as a security for investment, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is without merit.

3. Determination as to the conjunctive claim (as to the claim for damages caused by nonperformance of obligations)

A. Summary of the parties' arguments

1) Plaintiff

Since the Plaintiff introduced the right to move into the instant case from the Defendants, and purchased the right to move into the instant case from E through the Defendants’ brokerage act, the Plaintiff and the Defendants are deemed to have entered into a brokerage contract similar to the contract and the delegation contract (hereinafter “instant brokerage contract”). However, the Defendants failed to properly confirm and explain the relationship of the right to move into the instant case by neglecting their duty of care as a party to the brokerage contract. Therefore, the Defendants, who jointly breached their contractual duty, are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money equivalent to KRW 20 million as a compensation for the nonperformance of their duty, and damages for delay.

2) The Defendants

The Defendants introduced the right to move into the instant case to the Plaintiff, and acknowledged the fact that explained the relevant contents. However, the parties to the instant brokerage contract are not the Defendants but I, so the Defendants do not bear contractual liability on behalf of the Plaintiff. Even if the Defendants’ status as parties to the instant contract is recognized, it is sufficiently possible to limit the legal relationship as to the right to move into the instant case to the extent possible.

Along with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not violate the contractual obligation.

B. Determination

1) The issue of determining party to the instant brokerage contract

Where both parties to a contract agree with each other in relation to the confirmation of the parties to the contract, the parties to the contract shall be determined according to the agreed intent, and where the parties fail to agree with each other, a reasonable person shall be determined based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and circumstance of the contract (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da22089, Mar. 13, 1998).

In light of the above legal principles, the facts that the instant case was a private person who completed the registration of a separate juristic person by the Health Team, I, and that the Plaintiff participated in on-site answers and special lectures, etc. conducted by 'J' from the mid-2007, as seen earlier. According to the evidence No. 11, the Plaintiff’s participation in the on-site answers as above, and the fact that the depositr deposited the answer expenses into the account held by 'I' in the account held by 'J' in the State.

However, the following circumstances, which are considered to be comprehensively taken into account the evidence mentioned above and the overall purport of oral argument, namely, ① the Defendants did not prepare a particular brokerage book while mediating the instant sales contract between the Plaintiff and E, and the Plaintiff did not receive fees from the Plaintiff, and thus, it seems difficult for the Plaintiff to recognize that the other party to the instant sales contract was a separate one, not the Defendants. ② The instant sales contract includes only the Plaintiff and E as the party to the instant sales contract, and there is no mentioning who is the principal broker of the instant sales contract. ③ Although I is a corporation, it is difficult to understand the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff, and there is sufficient possibility for the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff to recognize the name of “J” as the mere Internet car page, ④

After the Plaintiff came to know of the occupancy right of this case from Defendant B’s lecture, the Plaintiff first become aware of the occupancy right of this case, and then asked the Defendants about the sale of the occupancy right of this case. The explanation from the Defendants was sought, and the sales contract of this case was executed with each of the Defendants rather than Defendant C along with the Defendant at the site of the contract of this case. In particular, there is no circumstance that the Defendants indicated that the contract of this case was mediated in the capacity of the constituent members of the corporation I. In the process, it is difficult to say that the Defendants were operating the contract of this case as a company of five million won or more, and the Defendant C stated that it was actually dissolved upon being detained by the Defendant B. As seen below, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff paid the Defendants an ordinary brokerage commission exceeding 1360,000 won from the Defendants, and concluded the contract of this case similar to the contract of this case with the Defendants, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendants were not the parties to the contract of this case.

2) Occurrence of damages liability

The purpose of the instant brokerage contract is to mediate between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff in the course of acquiring the right to move in from E. The dispute is likely to arise in connection with the recognition of the buyer’s status in the event that the Plaintiff’s right to move in from E is distributed prior to the stage of sale through the transfer or acquisition of the “company-owned share transfer contract” held by the seller, or the “basic partner’s right to move in as a disturbance” by the applicant. In particular, in the event that E acquires the right to move in as a security for transfer of investment money, such as the right to move in in in the instant case, there may arise a legal dispute over the existence of the right to move in between E and D, and in such a case, the dispute may be resolved through the lawsuit. Therefore, the Defendants

In addition to the mere process of G apartment project or whether D, an agent, and the right to move into the instant apartment project, are actually transferred to D, there is a duty of care to ascertain various circumstances by which the Plaintiff, the intermediary client, can obtain the right to purchase the actual apartment through the purchase of the right to move into the instant apartment project and explain the risks of acquiring the right based thereon to the Plaintiff, who is the buyer, so that the Plaintiff can make a reasonable purchase decision based on such information. As a result of the breach of the above duty of care, if the Plaintiff, the buyer, suffers damage as a result of the breach of the duty of care, he/she shall be held liable to compensate

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendants, based on the evidence evidence Nos. 7 and 5 as well as the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, providing the Plaintiff with information to the effect that the Defendants may acquire the right to purchase the right in this case by obtaining the right to purchase the right in this case without sufficiently verifying the legal relationship, disposal authority, etc. of the right to move in in in this case through E or D, the seller, and allowing the Plaintiff to enter into the sales contract of this case. Thus, it is deemed that the Defendants failed to perform their duty of care to protect the Plaintiff, who is the contracting party, based on the correct information provision, so the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred therefrom.

① A member of the Defendants is a company that engages in real estate trading business, consulting business, and information provision business. A member of the Defendants is a company that establishes a car page under the name of J and provides various real estate-related information to investors including the Plaintiff, etc., and is an expert who actually forms a real estate contract brokerage as in the instant case, and the Defendants appears to have indicated such fact.

Although the Plaintiff is interested in the real estate contract more than the Defendants, given that there is a lack of relevant knowledge or information compared to the Defendants, it is a position that the information on the G apartment redevelopment project or the right to occupy the instant case is bound to be based on an expert like the Defendants (the Plaintiff appears to have failed to obtain information on the instant contract even when considering the reference materials submitted by Defendant C after the closing of argument in the trial, 'the next car page' in relation to the right to occupy the instant case, the Plaintiff appears to have been unable to obtain information on the instant contract to the extent that it confirms the D website, an executing agent, and the apprehensions therefrom are discussed

② According to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the limit of brokerage commission is 1,360,000 won in the case of sale of housing equivalent to 340,000 won. Although I or the Defendants are not licensed real estate agents, the obligation of the Defendants to the Plaintiff under the instant brokerage agreement is not significantly different from that of the real estate broker. However, the fees paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants exceeds the limit set forth in the above-related Acts and subordinate statutes (E also paid 40 million won to the Defendants as commission). The payment of these high-amount fees is deemed to have been made by the Plaintiff, a non-professional, to have been provided with the correct information related to the right to move into the instant housing by the Defendants, an expert, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was simply paid the fees to the Defendants with the meaning of the audit for the introduction of E or the conclusion of the contract.

(3) Nevertheless, according to the contents of the Defendants’ testimony in the instant lawsuit, it appears that Defendant B was unable to give specific testimony as to how to confirm the legal relationship of the occupancy right of this case to Defendant C and explain it to the Plaintiff following a certain confirmation. Defendant C did not actually contact the seller E before entering into the instant sales contract on April 1, 2008, and only this case is applicable to T, a corporate secretary of the law firm to which E belongs.

The contents related to the right to move into the instant case seems to have been confirmed. In other words, the Defendants testified that, without having directly contacted E as the party to the instant trade contract, the Defendants arranged a sales contract for the right to move into the instant case, which is highly likely to cause disputes in the future, since construction has not yet been completed (the instant sales contract was concluded at approximately 5 to 10 minutes, even when Defendant C visited E’s office with the Plaintiff). The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff directly visited D with the Plaintiff to inquire about the issue of rights and received documents proving the members’ rights (Evidence No. 6). However, in the instant lawsuit, the Defendants, who was the head of the D marketing business office, testified that, although the Defendants were in the form of D marketing business office, they did not memory as to whether they visited the Plaintiff and specifically visited the Plaintiff, while paying the remainder of 30 million won to E on April 10, 2008, and received the basic evidence of G members (Evidence No. 6) from E. 6.

④ In addition to the right to move into the instant apartment and G apartment, the Defendants received a request from the Defendants to trade six occupancy rights (including the right to move into the instant apartment and G apartment including the right to move into the instant apartment and the right to move into the instant apartment, and the total purchase price of the right to move into the instant apartment and the right to move into the instant apartment are approximately KRW 1.7 billion. In view of the fact that there is a high possibility of legal dispute in connection with the right to move into the instant apartment and the situation at the time when one individual requests the sale of a large number of occupancy rights at the same time, the Defendants need to further verify whether the Defendants obtained the right to move into the instant apartment and G apartment and the right to move into the instant apartment through E or D. If the Defendants fulfilled such confirmation obligation, it is difficult to confirm that E has obtained the right to move into the instant apartment and G apartment as collateral for investment (Article 2(3) of the Agreement entered into between E and D, and it is difficult to confirm that the aforementioned content is the Defendants.

(C) The Plaintiff appears to have not easily purchased the occupancy right of this case. In particular, considering the fact that around April 10, 2008, the Plaintiff paid the remainder to E, the occupancy right of the E-owned company arranged by the Defendants, including the occupancy right of this case (excluding the A-096 purchase price by Q), and that the combined purchase price exceeds 1.3 billion won, which is more than 7.6 billion won, the principal and the profits invested in D. It is more true in view of the fact that E exceeds 7.6 million won, which is the principal and profits invested in D.

3) Scope of damages

According to the facts established earlier, the Plaintiff purchased the right to move in of this case due to negligence that the Defendants violated their duty of care and failed to fully perform their duty of explanation, and paid 20 million won to the Defendants as brokerage commission. This is deemed to be a loss with causation with the Defendants’ breach of duty as a broker. Thus, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the pertinent amount to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

However, it is difficult to view the following as a whole comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire argument in the evidence as follows: (a) it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was taking into account the following factors such as (i) whether the Plaintiff may obtain a sort of right of occupancy in a housing association with legal unstable housing association (such as whether or not the Plaintiff may obtain a future buyer's status) by itself to investigate and confirm the risks of acquiring the right of occupancy in the housing association; (b) there is a possibility that the project of a regional housing association with the issue of the occupancy right of this case requires a long period of time in the case of the project of a regional housing association with a large number of variables such as the recruitment of union members, and (iii) the conclusion of the sales contract of this case is likely to cause damages due to the Plaintiff's failure to notify the Plaintiff of important transactional matters, which is a seller of the occupancy right of this case, and (iii) the conclusion of the sales contract of this case is likely to cause damages.

The scope of damages caused by nonperformance should be limited to 50% of the amount of damages recognized in light of the principle of fairness or good faith.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendants jointly file a claim against the Plaintiff regarding the existence and scope of the obligation to pay KRW 10 million (x limitation 50% of the above fees) and from June 14, 2016 (Defendant B) to the Plaintiff (Defendant C) (the due date for the Defendant’s performance of the obligation is due because the damage claim due to nonperformance is a claim for which the due date is not specified) and from June 16, 2016 (the due date for the Defendant’s performance of the obligation is due. The Plaintiff is liable only for tort or return of unjust enrichment at the first instance trial, and only claims for nonperformance due to the change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, which were presented at the trial. Accordingly, each Defendants filed a claim for damages from the next day of the delivery of the obligation to pay damages to the Plaintiff through the application for the change of the purport of the claim and the scope of the obligation to pay damages to each of the Defendants under the Civil Act until October 24, 2017, which is the date on which the Civil Act becomes final and conclusive.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim added in the trial shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition. The remaining conjunctive claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it shall be dismissed as there is part of the conjunctive claim added in the trial, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as above. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong-ro

Judges Lee Jae-sik