beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
Defendant B, a licensed real estate agent operating the C Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”), concluded a mutual aid agreement from April 23, 2013 to April 22, 2014 with the number D, amount of deduction 100 million won, and period of mutual aid from April 23, 2013.
On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff leased from F a deposit of KRW 25 million, and the lease period of KRW 25 million from November 25, 2013, the unit E apartment 616 Dong-gu 1503 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Ansan-si as a broker by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
(2) On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 20,873,080, including the top priority repayment under the Housing Lease Protection Act, as the instant apartment was sold by public auction.
However, in the lawsuit for the claim for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation filed by Norway Co., Ltd. against the Plaintiff (U.S. District Court Decision 2014Kadan13419), the above court rendered a ruling to the effect that the instant lease agreement constitutes a fraudulent act on November 4, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive because the Plaintiff did not appeal.
Defendant B should explain to the Plaintiff at the time of mediating the instant lease agreement to the effect that the instant lease agreement is subject to the top priority repayment, and did not explain to the effect that the instant lease agreement may be revoked as a fraudulent act.
【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap 4-11 evidence, Eul 1-2 evidence, Eul 1-2 testimony, G testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff neglected to explain that defendant Eul could not recover the lease deposit because the lease contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act, and rather, he did not neglect this to explain that the first priority repayment deposit is guaranteed under the Housing Lease Protection Act, thereby resulting in losses that the plaintiff could not recover the lease deposit of this case, and thus, he was liable against the above defendant for damages of 25 million won.