The judgment below

The part concerning Plaintiff B is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Southern District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Plaintiff B’s grounds of appeal, the lower court: (a) falsely concluded that Plaintiff B, via D, provided that “the former tenant shall be given KRW 30 million a premium to the former tenant of the instant store; (b) if leaving KRW 30 million to the real estate office, the former tenant will find the premium;” and (c) the Defendant granted KRW 5 million a premium through D to E who is an employee of the real estate brokerage office; and (d) the Plaintiff B would deliver the revenue to the tenant on its job; (b) the Defendant delivered the remainder KRW 25 million a premium to E through D on August 1, 2012; and (c) the Plaintiff, who was aware of the fact that Plaintiff B received KRW 30 million a receipt from the former tenant to receive KRW 30 million a premium from the former tenant; and (c) recognized the Defendant’s obligation to receive the said premium by deceptioning the Plaintiff’s claim for damages through the said tort; and (c) thereby, acknowledged the Defendant’s obligation to use the premium in this case’s tort.

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

In order to establish liability for damages caused by deception, there should be intentional deception between one of the parties to the transaction, which is caused by mistake, and thus, it should be deemed that the other party would not have been able to have done without such deception by social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da62641 Decided April 12, 2007). In light of these legal principles, in order for the Defendant to be liable for damages caused by the Plaintiff’s deception to be established, the premium amount is KRW 30 million if the Defendant had not committed the said deception by Plaintiff B.