The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the court below determined that the Defendants, who operated a licensed real estate agent's office or worked as its employees, committed an act of violating the general duty of care or the duty of good faith under the principle of trust and good faith when mediating contracts to the E-regional housing association (hereinafter "the instant association") that was promoting the construction of apartment buildings in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter "the instant project site"), and explained to the intermediary client about whether the instant association was established or not, whether the improvement zone for the housing redevelopment project was designated in the instant project site, and its impact, etc., and did not properly inform the Plaintiffs of such fact, but did not properly inform the Plaintiffs of the market profits if they joined the instant association.

However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

Since the legal relationship between a real estate broker and a client is similar to a delegation relationship under the Civil Act, a broker who receives a request for brokerage has a duty to verify and confirm the legal relationship, etc. of the object of brokerage and explain it to the broker (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da69654, Nov. 29, 2012; 2013Da14903, Jun. 28, 2013). This is not different in cases where a real estate broker or his/her brokerage assistant performs the duty of checking and confirm the legal relationship, etc. of the object of brokerage with the care of a good manager.

The judgment below

According to the reasons and records, the plaintiffs paid the defendants the money under the name of the premium.