beta
Text
1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 3.3 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from October 6, 2015 to July 6, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 12, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) under the brokerage of a licensed real estate agent B, a real estate broker, for the lease of the Gyeonggi-do House E-dong 302 (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant is a juristic person which is a real estate broker and is established as an organization whose members are real estate brokers and engages in a mutual aid business to guarantee the transaction party’s liability for damages incurred to the transaction party in acting as a broker within the limit of KRW 100 million.
B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, D was the owner of the instant loan registry, but the actual owner was E, and E was the lessor’s agent qualification and was present without the power of attorney.
C. In the form of entering into the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff raised an objection to B to the licensed real estate agent B, stating that “it does not have any problem with the right of representation because the owner was not the owner,” and that E contacted anywhere, and presented it to the Plaintiff by facsimile by sending the certificate of the corporate seal impression and the certificate of the corporate resident registration certificate E to which D is the representative director, and the licensed real estate agent B said that the Plaintiff did not have the right of representation, even if there was no power of representation.
At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the security right, such as senior collateral, was established on the loan of this case, and E promised to “E, upon receipt of the deposit for lease, will cancel the entire second priority collateral right established on the instant real estate, and pay 30 million won out of the first priority collateral obligation of KRW 60 million.”
However, after receiving the deposit from the Plaintiff, E did not perform the said promise, and thereafter, it was awarded to a third party by the voluntary auction procedure (f) based on the priority mortgage of the instant loan, and the Plaintiff could not receive the deposit.