손해배상(기)
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from August 6, 2015; and Defendant C with respect to the same. < Amended by Act No. 13505, Aug. 6, 2
Facts of recognition
The following facts are not in dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 1 through 6, witness D's testimony and fact-finding results with respect to Sejong Special Self-Governing City Mayor, and there is no counter-proof.
Defendant B, a licensed real estate agent, operated the “E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” from April 1, 2013 to January 15, 2014, and Defendant C served as Defendant B’s brokerage assistant from July 18, 2013.
B. On September 26, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with G on behalf of Defendant C as a broker of Defendant C, whereby the Plaintiff purchased H 1451m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) from FJ-related public officials of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant land”) for KRW 150 million from FJ-related public officials of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant land”).
On the same day, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to Defendant C as the down payment of the instant sales contract.
C. G was a state in which the instant sales contract was not duly authorized from Franchising F. G, and escaped after receiving the said down payment of KRW 20 million from Defendant C.
Judgment
1) Where a real estate broker’s brokerage assistant employed by the real estate broker intentionally or negligently causes property damage to the transaction party, the brokerage assistant shall, as a matter of course, be liable for the damage suffered by the transaction party as a tort. Meanwhile, Article 15(2) of the former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014) provides that the broker shall be held liable for the damage inflicted upon the transaction party by prescribing that the act of the broker assistant is deemed the act of the broker employing him/her (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da78279, Feb. 9, 2012). 2) Defendant C, as the broker assistant of Defendant B, had the broker of this case mediated the sales contract.