Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 2 (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 16, 2010

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 30,000,000 won with 5% interest per annum from April 11, 2008 to February 26, 2010, and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant 1 (Co-defendant 1 of the Supreme Court and the judgment of the second instance) operated the office of licensed real estate agents in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu (hereinafter omitted) under the status of lending the licensed real estate agent qualification certificate and the registration certificate of a brokerage office from Defendant 2 (Co-Defendant 2 of the Supreme Court and the judgment of the second instance) who is a licensed real estate agent.

B. On April 11, 2008, Defendant 1 visited the above licensed real estate agent office in order to rent an officetel in the above-ro ○○○○○○. Although Defendant 1 had already sold the above officetel 1522 to Nonparty 1 (non-party in the judgment of the Supreme Court) and had completed the registration of ownership transfer, Defendant 1 pretended to be the owner of the above officetel 1522, the above officetel 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 30,000, and received KRW 30,000 from the Plaintiff (the lease agreement includes the broker as Defendant 2).

C. While the Plaintiff occupied the said officetel 1522, the Plaintiff was subject to a real estate delivery lawsuit from Nonparty 1, and delivered the said officetel to Nonparty 1.

D. The Defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) is a mutual aid business entity established to guarantee the broker’s liability for damages, and entered into a mutual aid agreement with Defendant 2 with the amount of 50,000,000 won.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence A and 12, the purpose of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff is the cause of the claim in this case, and the defendant 1 is liable for damages incurred to the plaintiff due to fraudulent acts, and the defendant 2 is the nominal lender, and the defendant Association is liable for the above damages jointly and severally with the defendant 1 as the mutual aid business operator who takes over the responsibility of the defendant 2.

However, according to each of the above facts, Defendant 1 is a tort, Defendant 2 is the nominal name holder, Defendant Association is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 as a mutual aid business operator, and its delay damages. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

B. As to this, the defendant association asserts that the act of the defendant 1 does not occur in the brokerage, and that the plaintiff's negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of damages.

However, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, even if Defendant 1’s act was in the lessor’s position, it can be objectively included in the scope of acts for brokerage under social norms even though it was objectively included in the scope of acts for brokerage, and it is difficult to view that Defendant 1’s act was negligent as it was in trust and trading with Defendant 2 with the consent of Defendant 2, and it is difficult to view that there was the negligence of the Plaintiff that could take into account

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.

Judge Meritorious;