2. B

2. D;

3. Stock company E.

4. Stock company F.

2. The plaintiff's claim against defendant F is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant C Housing Association Promotion Committee, D and E are borne by the defendant C Housing Association Promotion Committee, D and E, and the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant F is borne by the defendant F.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. Status of the parties and conclusion of an agency contract

1) The Defendant C Housing Association Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant C Housing Association Promotion Committee”) is a non-corporate body that is promoting the establishment of a regional housing association under the Housing Act in order to construct a new apartment house in the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G G, and Defendant D is a representative of Defendant D’s promoting members from August 7, 2015 to March 2017, and Defendant E is a company that vicariously executes its duties by concluding a service contract on behalf of the Defendant Promotion Committee for all necessary affairs for the establishment of the association and the new housing construction project (hereinafter referred to as “multi-family housing construction project promoted by Defendant E and Defendant E” refers to the “instant housing project”).

2) On July 30, 2014, Defendant F entered into a contract with the Defendant Promotion Committee and Defendant E to perform management affairs on the advertisement of recruitment and sale of contracting parties to the association of the instant housing project, the construction of public relations centers, field management, the management of contracting parties to the association, the selection of contracting parties to the recruitment service contract as proxy, etc.

3) On July 31, 2014, with the consent of Defendant F, the Defendant Promotion Committee and Defendant E entered into a contract with Nonparty F to commission Nonparty F F&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I&C”) to recruit members’ subscription contracts and sell general sales. Under the same contract, Defendant F agreed to assume the duty of managing and supervising the performance of its duties (hereinafter referred to as “an agreement between the said three companies and the Defendant Promotion Committee”).

4. On July 20, 2015, L&C again concluded a contract to re-entrust the recruitment business of the members to the IM partnership asset management (hereinafter “IM partnership”).

B. On August 2015, 2015, the Plaintiffs found a partnership entry and sales promotion center of the instant housing project, and at that place, Defendant Promotion Committee and Defendant E, which promoted the instant housing project, secure a written consent to use at least 85% of the relevant housing construction site, which is the requirement for authorization to establish a collective housing project. As such, the Plaintiffs agreed to enter into the second half of 2016 with authorization to establish a partnership within the first half of 2016 and that it is possible to enter into the second half of 2019 after completion of the construction in early 2019.

C. The plaintiffs trusted the explanation of H, concluded an association subscription agreement to subscribe to the regional housing association of the housing project of this case as a member of the regional housing association of the housing project of this case and to be supplied with an apartment in the future (hereinafter referred to as the "each of the association subscription agreements of this case"), and paid the down payment to the defendant promotion committee.

1) On August 22, 2015, Plaintiff A entered into an agreement to enter into an association with respect to one apartment household, and paid the down payment of KRW 30 million. On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff A entered into another agreement to enter into an association with respect to one apartment household, and paid the down payment KRW 30 million.

2) On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff B entered into an agreement to enter into an association with respect to one apartment household, and paid down payment of KRW 30 million.

D. However, Defendant Promotion Committee and Defendant E have not secured not only at the time of entering into each of the instant partnership agreements, but also until now a written consent to land use.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap-5, 6, 7, 8 evidence, Eul-1, 2 evidence (the evidence of Eul-2 is the same as Eul-1 evidence, the evidence of Eul-4 is the same as Ulsan 2 evidence, and Eul-1 and 2 evidence is the same as Eul-1, 2 evidence), Eul-9 evidence, witness H's testimony, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' claims

The plaintiffs asserted as follows as the cause of the claim against the defendants, and asserts as the selective claim relationship.

A. Liability for damages caused by joint tort by the Defendants

In collusion, Defendant D and Defendant E’s representative director, the representative of the Defendant Promotion Committee, had H obtain at least 85% consent of land use at the time of entering into each of the instant partnership agreements, thereby inducing the Plaintiffs to be authorized to establish the relevant housing construction site and implementing the housing project, or neglecting at least H’s deception knowing the deception, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiffs to pay the down payment by entering into each of the instant partnership agreements as part of H’s erroneous explanation.

Defendant F is obligated to manage and supervise all the affairs of soliciting members of L&C in accordance with the membership recruitment service agreement. However, Defendant F aids and abets H’s tort by failing to take any corrective measures against H’s deception, and thereby, he/she is jointly and severally liable with the aforementioned Defendants.

In accordance with Article 35(1) of the Civil Act, the Defendant Promotion Committee shall apply mutatis mutandis to the above illegal acts of the representative D, and the Defendant E shall be jointly and severally liable with the said Defendants pursuant to Articles 389(2) and 210 of the Commercial Act for such unlawful acts related to the duties of the representative director I.

(b) Responsibility for return of unjust enrichment due to cancellation of a contract based on an expression of intent by fraud, or claim for restitution following cancellation of each of the instant agreements (limited to claims against Defendant Promotion Committee and Defendant E);

1) Since the Plaintiffs entered into each of the instant association agreements due to the deceptions of Defendant Promotion Committee and H, which are the representatives of Defendant E, the said agreement was revoked on the ground of the expression of intent by deception. The Defendant Promotion Committee and E, which are parties to each of the instant association agreements, are obligated to refund the down payment already paid to the Plaintiffs and pay legal interest and delay damages.

2) In addition, Defendant Promotion Committee, and E have failed to obtain the authorization for establishment of a regional housing association until now and have failed to carry out construction works. Since the performance of the obligation to supply an apartment under each of the instant association subscription agreements is impossible, the Plaintiffs are released from each of the instant association subscription agreements. Therefore, Defendant Promotion Committee and E, which are the parties to the instant association agreement, are obligated to return the already paid contract deposit and pay legal interest and delay damages.

C. The Defendants’ employer’s liability for H’s tort (the Defendant’s promotion committee, E, and F’s claim) is related to the Defendant’s promotion committee, E, and F, and thus, the Defendants are liable for employer’s liability for H’s deception. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages and losses equivalent to the down payment to the Plaintiffs pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act.

3. Determination on the liability for damages arising from joint tort committed by Defendant Promotion Committee, D, and E

A. At the time of entering each of the instant housing projects, H, who was employed as a staff member of the IM partnership, who was delegated by Defendant Promotion Committee or E with the recruitment business of its members, had secured a written consent to land use of at least 85% of the site of the instant housing projects to the Plaintiffs at the time of entering each of the instant housing projects. As such, the association was established until the first half of 2016 and it was scheduled to enter the first half of 2016 and it was completed in the first half of 2019 to explain that it is possible to move into the first half of 2019. However, as seen earlier, the fact that the written consent to land use of the instant land subject to the instant housing project has not been secured at all until now is not secured. According to the witness H’s testimony, H and other employees of IM partnership including H may recognize the fact that they received education on the explanation in relation to the instant housing project and provided explanation to the Plaintiffs in accordance with the business instruction (However, it does not admit the above explanation).

B. Furthermore, according to the overall purport of evidence No. 10 and oral argument, around October 24, 2015, the plaintiffs demanded confirmation as to whether the consent to land use necessary for the authorization to establish the association has been secured by 85% of the land subject to H’s explanation, and the sales contract between Defendant D and the representative director of Defendant E is secured by at least 85% of the land owners at the time of the Defendant’s promotion committee, and this means to the effect that “the consent to land use is secured by 85% of the land subject to the authorization to establish the association, and thus, the land use right is secured by 85% of the land subject to the requirements for the authorization to establish the association.” As the plaintiff presented a land sales contract directly and demanded confirmation as to whether the land sales contract satisfies the consent to land use, the land sales contract is not a “written consent to land use,” and it can be acknowledged that the land sales contract provides a statement to the effect that it has not been accurately secured by obtaining the landowner’s seal and securing several percent of the land use right.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the above paragraphs (a) and (n) above, Defendant D as the representative of Defendant E’s committee, and Nonparty A as the representative director of Defendant E, and it is sufficiently confirmed that he was aware of the fact that he did not secure the consent to land use necessary for the housing project of this case as the principal location in which the association establishment, the construction of apartment houses, the promotion of the sale of housing, and the decision-making and the execution of the sale of the housing project of this case were the representative director of Defendant E, and that he did not secure the consent to land use necessary for the housing project of this case. In view of the dialogue expressed in evidence No. 10, Defendant D and Nonparty A would have been aware of the fact that the sale and sale contract of land held at the time is not a document guaranteeing the right to land use, but the document guaranteeing the right to land usage of the land to the persons who signed the contract for the establishment of the association was not secured at least 85% of the land subject to the consent to the association’s establishment or the status of the association’s member recruitment service contract (Article 1(3 and 2).

D. According to this, Defendant D and Nonparty I provided false notification to H on the fact of securing a written consent to land use, which is an important factor in determining whether to enter into a partnership agreement, thereby committing deception against the Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Defendant D and Nonparty 1 are jointly liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to such deception.

Defendant D, a representative of the partnership, has inflicted damages on the plaintiffs in connection with his duties, so Article 35 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the liability for damages on the plaintiffs.

Defendant E is liable for damages to the Plaintiffs in accordance with Articles 398(2) and 210 of the Commercial Act, since Defendant E falls under the case where Defendant E, a representative director, incurred losses to the Plaintiffs in connection with the execution of duties.

E. Sub-decision

The damage equivalent to the down payment paid by the Plaintiff A due to the tort, i.e., the damage of KRW 60 million paid by the Plaintiff A, and KRW 30 million paid by the Plaintiff B, and the damages for delay therefrom, are liable to pay the said damages. [ insofar as the Defendants are liable for damages arising from the tort (in the case of the Defendant Promotion Committee, the Defendant Promotion Committee, and the representative director’s tort liability arising from the performance of duties), the remainder of the selective claims are not required to be examined.]

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant F

A. Existence of tort liability

1) According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and witness H’s testimony, Defendant F’s office was located in the public relations office for joining the association regarding the instant housing project, and Defendant F was in the position of managing and supervising the recruitment of association members of the IM partnership through the cooperation T&C. However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant F’s representative director, executive officers, and employees, etc. actively participated in the recruitment of association members by explaining that H, who is an employee of the IM partnership, did not obtain at all the consent for land use necessary for the authorization of establishment, even though the consent for land use was not secured at least 85% and did not meet the requirements for 85% of the consent for land use.

In addition, H responded to the question of whether he received the data presented from Defendant F by explaining that the ratio of the written consent to land use is 85% in the examination of witness, but it is only that he did not provide any detailed explanation about the response. However, the question continued in relation to the explanation, education and data transmission is received from the superior staff of AM partnership, and the data is received from the superior staff of H partnership, and the source is not known. As such, the aforementioned testimony is difficult to be used as evidence to acknowledge that the above part of H's testimony was actively involved in the above erroneous explanatory act or impliedly known to Defendant F's representative, executive officer, employee, etc.

In addition, according to the overall purport of the evidence No. 14-3 and the argument, Defendant F may acknowledge the fact that he prepared explanatory materials concerning the instant housing business, but the above explanatory materials do not contain references to the ratio of securing the consent to land use, and thus, it is not enough to recognize the above Defendant F’s public invitation or implied fact.

There is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the claim for damages based on a tort cannot be accepted, based on the premise that Defendant F had the aforementioned Defendants jointly explain the difference with the truth and caused H to enter into a contract by omitting the plaintiffs in error.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that Defendant F bears the duty to manage and supervise the recruitment of members of L&C in a four-party agreement dated July 31, 2014, and that F&C requests L&C to recruit its members and, if any, has the authority to request the submission of data on the recruitment of its members and to request the correction of occupational errors.

However, Defendant F’s management and supervision obligation with respect to the recruitment of union members under a contract signed by Defendant F on July 31, 2014 or IMN partnership is a contractual party, the other party, the Defendant Promotion Committee, the other party, and the contractual obligation to be borne by E, and is not a contractual party, and is not a contractual obligation to be borne by a third party, not a contractual party (i.e., the Plaintiff is a contractual obligation under the foregoing contract, and the Plaintiff externally claims that the third party bears the same obligation under the good faith principle or sound reasoning, but it is difficult to find specific grounds that Defendant F bears such contractual obligation externally).

Even if the Defendant F is not liable for damages due to the breach of contractual management and supervision obligations, the Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendant F against the Defendant F, claiming that Defendant F is liable for damages against the Plaintiffs on the ground that it violated contractual management and supervision obligations, is without merit.

B. Whether employers are liable

In order to establish the employer's liability, it should be recognized that the employer has caused damages to others due to the illegal acts of employees.

If so, before discussing whether H had a relation of use or use with Defendant F, it should first be seen as whether H’s tort is recognized, and even if H knew that at the time of entering into each of the instant agreements to enter into, it did not have any written consent to land use relating to the instant housing project, it cannot be recognized that H intentionally committed a deceitful act against the Plaintiffs, as there is no evidence to prove that H had been aware of the fact that the consent to land use was secured at least 85% of the land to deceive the Plaintiffs, and that H had no evidence to prove that the consent to land use was secured (No.M.’s employee who was provided with data from MN partnership and provided with education shall be deemed as having been secured at 85% of the written consent to land use by the company to publicize and recommend the partnership agreement while explaining that the written consent to land use was secured by 85% of the company’s employees, it cannot be deemed as having any duty to verify whether the written consent to land use has been secured as a true fact).

Therefore, the claim for damages based on the employer's liability, which is premised on Defendant F's tort against H, cannot be accepted.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant promotion committee, D, and E is justified, and the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant F is dismissed as it is without merit.