beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the defendant's argument added in the trial of the court of first instance is stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as stipulated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant's assertion as to whether the subject matter of mutual aid is the public rental apartment of this case, and the subject matter of mutual aid is clearly defined as the subject matter of public rental apartment of this case, and since the subject matter of mutual aid cannot be seen as being the object of mutual aid because the subject matter of mutual aid cannot be seen as being the object of mutual aid because the amount of monetary compensation for intangible property value paid by the plaintiff to B is the subject matter of mutual aid. However, the defendant's argument is without merit, since the public rental apartment of this case between the plaintiff and D was mediated for the lease and sale of the public rental apartment of this case.
B. 1) The Defendant asserts the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of mutual-aid money under the instant mutual-aid agreement is two years from the date of occurrence of the accident. However, the instant lawsuit was filed after two years from January 2, 2012 when the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract. 2) As to mutual-aid projects operated by the Real Estate Agent Association of Korea under Article 35-2 of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act and Article 42 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, the broker’s tort or nonperformance of obligation to compensate the parties to the transaction, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim for mutual-aid money should be interpreted to run from the time when the applicant for mutual-aid knew or could have known of the occurrence of the accident.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da58339 Decided December 13, 2007). 3.