beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 30,000,000 and for this, KRW 5% per annum from November 16, 2015 to August 31, 2016.
Reasons
1. As to the claim against the defendant B
A. On March 27, 2015, Defendant B, who was not a licensed real estate agent’s office employee, prepared a lease contract under which the Plaintiff leased 503 U.S. D located in Busan-gu, Busan-do, and arbitrarily consumed KRW 26.51 million out of the lease deposit 30 million received from the Plaintiff. On November 16, 2015, Defendant B, who recognized his mistake, drafted an agreement on debt repayment with the Plaintiff to pay KRW 30 million, the actual amount of damage, and thus, the instant lawsuit was brought about.
(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. As to the claim against the defendant C
A. On March 27, 2015, when the Plaintiff alleged to be the Plaintiff, he voluntarily consumed KRW 26.51 million out of the lease deposit 30 million, which Defendant B received from the Plaintiff. Defendant B is the employee of Defendant C, and Defendant C prepared a lease contract and received the lease deposit at the licensed real estate agent office of Defendant C’s operation. As such, Defendant C is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by Defendant B’s brokerage pursuant to Article 30(1) and (2) of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”).
B. When a judgment broker inflicts property damage on a transaction party by intention or negligence in conducting brokerage (see Article 30(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act), he/she shall be liable for the damage (see Article 30(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act), and when he/she inflicts property damage on a transaction party by providing his/her brokerage office as a place for
(See Paragraph 2 of the same Article). However, only the descriptions of Nos. 1, 2, and 4 are described, Defendant C mediated the lease agreement of the Plaintiff’s assertion.
or its brokerage office was provided as a place for Defendant B’s brokerage act.