(a) Validity of the introduction fee agreement in excess of the maximum amount, and whether the fee is deducted from the expense for exercising the security right in the excess;

B. Whether the obligation to return the settlement amount is a joint obligation where several creditors who separately leased money jointly received the registration of transfer of ownership for the purpose of security

A. Article 4 (2) of the Introduction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3676 of Dec. 30, 1983) prohibits the designation of the fee for the introduction business in excess of the standard and limit prescribed by the Ordinance of Seoul Special Metropolitan City or Do, which was enacted pursuant to Article 4 (1) of the same Act, and prohibits the introduction business operator from receiving or receiving money and valuables other than the prescribed fee regardless of the name, regardless of the name or condition of the placement business operator under Article 5 (3) of the same Act. These Articles are subject to the so-called mandatory law and are invalid.

B. If several creditors borrowed money separately from the debtor and jointly received a registration of ownership transfer for two parcels of land with the purpose of security by agreement when the security right is exercised, and each of them separately disposed of the secured real estate by the method of partition of co-owned property by agreement after completing the registration of ownership transfer for each obligee’s sole ownership in accordance with the ratio of loans, in the public loan for consumption, in the absence of any special declaration of intention, in the event that several creditors lend each set of money for a certain amount of money in the public loan for consumption, this claim cannot be returned to the debtor with a special declaration of intention as to co-ownership with the reason for having received the registration of ownership transfer for the purpose of security in the light of the fact that it is a divided claim in the absence of any special declaration of intention

A. Article 4 of the former Introduction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3676 of Dec. 20, 1983); Article 103 of the Civil Act; Article 408 and Article 413 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 76Da405 delivered on Nov. 23, 1976, 76Da984 delivered on Nov. 22, 1977

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Defendant 1’s Attorney Park Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 2

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na2517 delivered on April 23, 1985

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 2-3 by the plaintiff Kim Ha-ju, the ground of appeal No. 2 is examined as to the original judgment.

The court below recognized that two lots of land at issue in this case were provided to the defendants as collateral for the obligation such as the court below's opinion, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendants was made through the execution of the security right, and held that the amount of the secured debt at the court below's approval and the introduction cost that the defendants paid as the expense for the execution of the security right should be paid to the plaintiff as the settlement amount.

However, if we look at the part of the introduction fee, Defendant 1's KRW 500,00 and Defendant 2's KRW 250,000,000 are the total amount of KRW 750,00,00, and the fact that the land in this case is in the war is the same as the court below has decided.

However, Article 4 (2) of the Introduction Business Act (amended by Act No. 3676 of Dec. 30, 1983) which was effective at the time of the above acceptance of the introduction fee, was prohibited from setting the operation fee in excess of the standard and limit prescribed by the Ordinance of Seoul Special Metropolitan City or Do. In addition, Article 5 (3) of the same Act prohibits the act of receiving or receiving money and valuables other than the prescribed amount regardless of the pretext of the introduction business. These provisions are included in the so-called mandatory law, and the part of the arrangement for the introduction fee in excess of the maximum amount under the above provision should be deemed null and void (Supreme Court Decision 76Da984 delivered on Nov. 22, 197), and even if the defendants paid 750,000 won as the introduction fee for the sale of the above site, the part exceeding the maximum amount under the above provision cannot be deducted.

Therefore, the court below should have deliberated and judged whether or not there are parts that could not be deducted from the costs of exercising the security right under the above provision among the amount of introduction fees paid by the defendants, but the original judgment which did not reach this point cannot be deemed to have committed an unlawful act of incomplete hearing. The appeal pointing this out is reasonable, and it is clear that this affected the part against the plaintiff among the original judgment, and therefore, the original judgment shall not be reversed without considering the remaining grounds for appeal by the plaintiff's attorney.

2. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 4 by Defendant 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that although the defendants lent two parcels of the secured real estate of this case, which had been registered for the transfer of ownership in their names in the process of acquiring the security right, the court below divided three parcels of the secured real estate of this case into the land at the time of the court below, which is one of them for the convenience of disposition, and that according to the ratio of loans to the plaintiff by the method of partition of co-owned property by agreement, among these secured real estate of this case, three parcels of the court below is recognized to have been disposed of separately after the completion of the registration for the transfer of ownership by Defendant 1 and two remaining parcels of the secured real estate of this case as the sole ownership of Defendant 2, and in returning the settlement money at the time of the court below to the plaintiff, the defendants are liable to jointly and severally pay

However, in case where multiple creditors lend money to each of them in a loan for consumption, this claim shall be divided in the absence of a special declaration of intention, and the above reasons at the time of the judgment of the court below shall not be clear by a special declaration of intention as to solidarity, and even though such reasons cannot be seen as a legal factor which generates joint and several liability, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to joint and several liability, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and without examining other arguments, the part against the defendants in the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed.

3. Accordingly, we reverse the original judgment, and remand the case to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)