2012Na2822 Mutual Aid

A Kim

Attorney Kim Young-deok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korean Licensed Real Estate Agents Association

Cheongju-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City 930-42

Representative Director B Acting Director B/C

Attorney Park Jin-su, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-bong, Counsel for defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 201Da7702 decided January 18, 2012

November 28, 2012

December 12, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Article 1 of the Judgment of the court of first instance was modified as follows according to the reduction of claims at the trial. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 37,170,200 won with 5% interest per annum from July 12, 201 to January 18, 201, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 46,462,754 won and 5% interest per annum from July 12, 2011 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff has reduced the claim for damages for delay in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this case is that the court added the following judgments, and added "the second 11 of the judgment" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, "the third 3rd 10 of the judgment," and "the third 3rd 4th 2010 from September 29, 201 as requested by the plaintiff," and "the sixth 4th 4th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's argument

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 8, 201, which was known from June 23, 2008, when KimD promised to cancel the registration of the establishment of the instant apartment from June 23, 2008, or at the latest, that the decision to commence the sale of the instant apartment was served, and that the registration of the establishment of the instant apartment was not cancelled. As such, the Defendant’s obligation to pay mutual-aid money expired by prescription, since it was known from December 2008 to August 8, 201, when the two-year statute of limitations expired.

(b) Markets:

The claim for mutual-aid money is specifically determined as the occurrence of a mutual-aid accident and becomes able to exercise its right from that time. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription is proceeding from the time when a mutual-aid accident occurs pursuant to Article 166(1) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da39602, Feb. 8, 2002). However, in cases where there are circumstances where the claimant for mutual-aid cannot confirm the occurrence of a mutual-aid accident on the grounds that the occurrence of a mutual-aid accident is unclear objectively, the extinctive prescription should be interpreted to run from the time when the claimant for mutual-aid knew or could have known the occurrence of a mutual-aid accident (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da7870, Feb. 23, 2012).

According to the records of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, Kim Jong-chul agreed with the Plaintiff to cancel the registration of the establishment of the neighboring apartment of this case, which was established in relation to the apartment of this case, until June 23, 2008, while entering into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100,00,000,00, and the Plaintiff agreed to cancel the registration of the establishment of the neighboring apartment of this case, which was established in relation to the apartment of this case, until June 23, 2008. The 'E brokerage office' agreed to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred to the Plaintiff if KimD did not perform the obligation of cancellation in the course of demanding the Plaintiff to discharge the remainder of the lease agreement. Since KimD did not cancel the registration of the establishment of the neighboring apartment of this case, it is clear that the Plaintiff participated in the sale of the real estate of this case as a lessee on September 29, 2010 and received dividends of KRW 53,537,246.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received only KRW 53,537,246, which is part of the deposit for lease in the auction procedure of real estate rent for the apartment of this case on September 29, 2010, and knew or could have known the occurrence of the accident because it did not receive dividends of KRW 46,462,754, which is the remainder of the deposit for lease. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s extinctive prescription period for the claim for mutual aid from September 29, 2010 begins. However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on August 8, 201, which is before the lapse of the two-year extinctive prescription period.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, but the decision of the court of first instance is delivered with the decision of the court of first instance as it changed from the court of first instance to the decision of the plaintiff's claim reduction.

The presiding judge and the deputy judge;

Judges Lee Jae-hwan

Judges Kim Gin-ju