beta
Text
1. For the plaintiffs:
A. Defendant F is each the amount and amount indicated in the “lease Deposit” column in the separate sheet of lease.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Since August 2008, Defendant E owned “Itel” on a parcel of land (hereinafter “instant officetel”) other than H in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, and operated a leasing business for 70 or more rooms in the instant officetels.
Defendant F is a person who has been in charge of the management of the instant officetel by receiving 35,000 won as management expenses each month from occupants until he/she reaches his/her maturity on March 2014 after he/she was appointed as a manager of the instant officetel (at around April 201, he/she was regularly appointed but was involved in the management from time to time before he/she was appointed) by Defendant E.
Pursuant to Article 30(1) of the former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014; hereinafter “former Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”), the Defendant Association is a mutual aid business entity that operates a mutual aid business that guarantees the compensation of such damages if a broker, who is a member, causes property damage to a transaction party intentionally or by negligence in acting as a broker.
B. Since the Defendant F was in charge of the instant officetel’s management, he possessed the neck of the name of Defendant E with the permission of Defendant E, and if a public room occurs or the existing lease contract needs to be renewed, Defendant F has repeated the business of entering into a monthly rent-based lease agreement (hereinafter “monthly lease agreement”) by setting a small amount of deposit, monthly rent, etc. on behalf of E residing in Seoul.
Although Defendant F was delegated only with the authority to conclude a monthly rent lease contract by Defendant E, upon the request of K (Seoul died on February 23, 2015) who was residing in the instant officetel J as his husband, the Defendant F concluded a obligatory rent contract with respect to each of the units of the instant officetels in the future E after sunset, and conspired to deliver the lease deposit to K.