209 Ghana859 Damage, etc.

A (54 years old, female)

Attorney Don-do et al., Counsel for the defendant

1. B1 (Credit for 62 Years, Women);

2. B2 (Life in 69, South Korea)

3.

공동대표자 이사 ●의 직무대행자 , 이사 ▦

Attorney Park Jin-su, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Sang-chul

July 24, 2009

August 28, 2009

1. Defendant B1 and B2 shall pay to each Plaintiff 50,000,000 won with interest of 20% per annum from January 10, 2009, and Defendant B2 from March 27, 2009 to each full payment date.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant / the defendant / the defendant / the defendant is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B1 and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are assessed against each of the Plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

In relation to Defendant B1 and B2, it is selective, as set forth in paragraph (1) of the Disposition (referred to as “each person,” but referred to as “each person,” hereinafter): Defendant 1 investigation agency, jointly and severally with Defendant B1 and B2, shall pay to the Plaintiff 50,000,000 won and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the written complaint to the date of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

가. 원고는 공인중개사'라는 상호로 부동산중개업을 영위하는 공인중개사이고, 피고 B1은 '◆공인중개사' 라는 상호로 부동산중개업을 영위하는 공인중개사이며, 피고 B2는 신축 중인 부산 해운대구 우동 ○ 소재 △의 분양대행업체인 의 영업팀장이고, 피고 ■는 2007. 6. 12.부터 1년간 피고 B1과 사이에 공제금액을 5,000만 원으로 하는 공제계약을 체결한 자로서 공제가입자가 부동산 중개행위를 함에 있어 고의 또는 과실로 거래당사자에게 재산상의 손해를 발생하게 한 경우 공인중개사의 업무 및 부동산거래 신고에관한법률(이하 공인중개사법이라 한다)에 의한 손해배상책임을 지는 자이다.

B. Defendant B1, subject to Defendant B2’s payment of KRW 60,000,000 from Defendant B2 to Defendant B2, sought a statement of the request to introduce, and sought a statement of the request from the Plaintiff.

C. Defendant B1 presented that, according to the information obtained from Defendant B2, Defendant B1 demanded that the Plaintiff enter into a sales contract at the latest by May 2008, at the beginning of the first floor of the △△△△△, one of the four entrance left side of the entrance from among the first floor of the above △△△△△△△, the Plaintiff would be 60 million won at the latest.

D. The Plaintiff believed the horses of Defendant B1 and paid to that person KRW 10 million on March 31, 2008, and KRW 50 million on April 1, 2008, respectively. Defendant B1 had paid KRW 10 million on the pretext of fees, and paid KRW 50 million to Defendant B2.

E. As a result of the fact that the sales contract was not concluded on May 2008, which was promised by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff became aware that only the facility of the △△△△ was approved for the business and the sales approval was not applied for the approval for the sales of the commercial buildings.

F. The Plaintiff demanded Defendant B1 and B2 to return the said money, and around December 2008, the said Defendants filed a complaint with the Shipping Police Station as a crime of fraud, and the indictment was suspended due to Defendant B2’s unknown whereabouts.

G. On October 22, 2008 and October 23, 2008, Defendant B2 and Defendant B1 agreed to refund the remainder of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff by November 28 of the same year, while paying KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), Evidence No. 1, Witness D, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B1 and B2

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B1 and B2 are liable to pay to each Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 50 million from March 27, 2009 on the record that Defendant B2 is the day following the delivery of the complaint, and Defendant B1 is clearly liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from January 10, 2009 to each full payment day under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 10, 2009 to each full payment day on the record that it is clear that Defendant B1 is the day following the delivery of the complaint (it is not necessary to judge as long as the Plaintiff seeks damages for joint tort, but it is not necessary to judge as

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant / the defendant / the defendant.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As a person who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with Defendant B1 for one year from June 12, 2007, which provides a deduction amount of KRW 50 million with Defendant B1, and where a mutual aid policyholder intentionally or negligently causes property damage to a transaction party in the course of brokering real estate, the Defendant / her agent is liable for damage under the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act. Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable to pay the mutual aid amount of KRW 50 million and delay damages.

B. Determination

(1) Brokerage under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act is to arrange the sale, exchange, lease, and other gain, loss, and transfer of rights between the parties to the transaction regarding the "subject matter of brokerage" under Article 3 (Article 2 subparagraph 1). "Land, buildings, and other fixtures on land, standing trees under the Standing Timber Act, mining foundations under the Mining Foundation Mortgage Act, mining foundations under the Factory Mortgage Act, and factory foundations under the Factory Mortgage Act (Article 3) fall under the object of brokerage.

On the other hand, the "building" among the objects of brokerage mentioned above includes not only the existing building but also the specific building to be constructed in the future, so even if the buyer has been selected in relation to the specific building and number of the apartment, or after the sales contract was concluded, the act of mediating transaction, such as sale and purchase, even if the specific apartment is not completed, it constitutes a brokerage of the building. However, it is difficult to view that the occupancy right merely refers to the position of being selected as the buyer of the apartment if the apartment is won by filing an application for drawing on the date of drawing for a specific apartment, not the right to move into the specific apartment, and it is difficult to view that it is a building that is an object of brokerage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do1287, Apr. 23,

(2) In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view Defendant B1 as a kind of premium, which is not part of the sales contract price for one of the four entrances left side of the entrance of the above △△△ apartment floor, among the first floor of the above △△△△ apartment floor, and is a kind of premium for the purpose of arranging it. Since the object arranged in this case by Defendant B1 is a status that can be selected as a prospective buyer among four entrances left side of the entrance of the above △△ apartment floor of the above △△△△ apartment apartment, it is difficult to view it as a building that is a object of brokerage under the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B1 and B2 is justified, and the claim against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Sung-il