2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The defendant is jointly operating the "E" in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D with the deceased from around 2005.

was made.

B. On May 3007, the network C recommended the Plaintiff’s father F of the above brokerage office to acquire a membership certificate of HN (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) of the H regional housing association in force in the manner of the regional housing association in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G G, and explained to the effect that “Non-party company is promoting apartment business in the above business site, and completed prop work on the level of 72% of the land subject to the business, so if the member’s membership certificate is purchased, there will be a lot of prices in the future.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff decided to purchase the membership certificate through F, and transferred 20 million won through F to the bank account in the name of the network C with the purchase price of the membership certificate on May 30, 2007, and received the remainder of the membership certificate from Non-party 30,000 won under the joint name of the Plaintiff’s association on June 261, 200, and 300,78.

C. On May 30, 2007, the net C received KRW 20 million from F to the account in the name of the net C, and immediately transferred the amount of KRW 10 million to the account in the name of the Defendant’s foreign exchange bank. Thereafter, on June 26, 2007, the net C transferred the amount of KRW 14 million from F to the Defendant on June 28, 2007, and remitted the amount of KRW 13 million to the Defendant on June 28, 2007. On July 18, 2007, the net C transferred the amount of KRW 20 million from F to the balance of the instant purchase price, and transferred the amount of KRW 10 million to the account in the name of the Defendant’s foreign exchange bank under the name of the Defendant on the 19th following day.

D. However, at the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of the above membership certificate, the non-party company did not have actually acquired the right to a substantial portion of the above project site, and the "I Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association was already established and approved by the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government." On August 24, 2006, most of the project site of this case was "by the head of Seoul Metropolitan Government."

The defendant and the network C explained to the plaintiff and the F that the plaintiff and the F can occupy the apartment or sell the certificate of membership in the apartment after a lapse of four years without properly explaining or notifying the status of securing the project site and the designation of the housing redevelopment project zone under the Housing Redevelopment Project Act.

E. On the other hand, the defendant was subject to criminal punishment for fraud due to the crime that he/she acquired by deceiving the amount equivalent to the sale price by means of remittance to his/her own account by soliciting other persons than the plaintiff to purchase the above membership certificate in the above licensed real estate agent office jointly with the deceased C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 7 evidence (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

In full view of the circumstances indicated in the above basic facts and the arguments in this case, namely, the Defendant sold the certificate of membership with the network C several times, and the Defendant sold the certificate of membership with the network C and distributed the transferred sales amount with the network C. In particular, in relation to the instant case, the Defendant appears to have distributed the down payment and the remaining amount equivalent to 1/2 of the sales amount remitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant immediately after the receipt thereof. In full view of the fact that the Defendant, jointly with the network C, was in the position of joint seller selling the certificate of membership to the Plaintiff. In such a case, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was in the position of joint seller selling the certificate of membership to the Plaintiff. In such a case, the Defendant was obligated under the good faith principle to notify the Plaintiff of the status of securing the business site, the designation of the housing redevelopment project improvement zone, and the progress of the instant project, such as the establishment of the association. Nevertheless, the Defendant and the network did

As if it is proceeding smoothly, the act of selling a certificate of partner's subscription while selling it is a tort against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s tort are equivalent to the purchase price that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant and C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 19, 2007 to November 10, 2013, which was served on the Defendant from July 19, 2007, when the purchase price was finally paid to the Plaintiff, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.