beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 26, 2015, in mediating a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to G among the multi-family houses with the fourth fourth floor located in F in the city between the Plaintiff and E (hereinafter “the instant multi-family house”), D explained that “3.9 million won in the settlement of mortgage” as the registration register as to the legal relationship, etc. of the instant multi-family house as to the instant multi-family house as to the right relationship, etc. of the instant multi-family house, and written only the content thereof in the confirmation and explanatory note.
B. On March 25, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to E, and received a fixed date as of March 6, 2015, after completing the move-in report with the instant multi-family house G on April 6, 2015.
C. On February 23, 2017, with respect to the instant multi-family house and the instant house owned by E, the auction procedure for real estate was commenced on February 23, 2017 by the Changwon District Court through through the Changwon District Court (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).
In the auction procedure of this case, the appraised value of the real estate at auction is the sum of F, above KRW 835,176,520, and multi-household housing in this case, KRW 702,989,520, and KRW 131,842,00, which is the appraised value of H land and its ground, and KRW 345,00,000, other than the appraised value of the building.
However, more than once, 454,833,222 won was sold, and 448,015,453 won was actually distributed among them. 409,805,126 won was paid to K in the first priority lessee of the instant multi-household housing, and 30,402,647 won was paid to K in the top priority lessee of the instant multi-household housing, and 7,807,680 won was paid to K in the first priority lessee of the instant Ho-class housing, and other tenants including the Plaintiff did not receive dividends.
E. Meanwhile, the Defendant is a real estate broker under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act with D around March 17, 2014.