beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 30,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 4, 2016 to February 15, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B and C are employees of Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant intermediary corporation”).
B. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) with respect to KRW 775,500,000,000,000 for KRW 316.9 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by E, and the down payment of KRW 79,000,000 on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 2,000,000,000 on June 3, 2015, and the remainder of KRW 49,6,000,000,000 for each payment on June 30, 2015.
C. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 279 million in total to E in accordance with the instant sales contract.
The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against E to the effect that the instant sales contract was rescinded as the principal branch court of Chuncheon District Court 2015Ga6063, and thus, the Plaintiff returned the sales price. On December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff revoked the agreement on the instant sales contract and rendered a decision to recommend settlement with the effect that E pays KRW 214 million to the Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive on January 13, 2016.
(hereinafter “Lawsuit for Claim for Return of Sale Price”). 【Lawsuit for Claim for Return of Sale Price” / [Grounds for Recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 11,
2. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. Defendant B and C’s assertion 1) Defendant B and C jointly arranged the instant sales contract, and in the process of intermediation, the Plaintiff breached the duty to explain and prepare the contract, including the restriction on transaction of the object of brokerage.
B) Defendant C merely merely introduced the instant land to the Plaintiff, but did not have acted as a broker, and Defendant B also did not act as a broker for the instant sales contract. Whether the act constitutes a broker under Article 30(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act constitutes a broker under Article 30(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, in light of the purport of the legal provision aimed at the protection of a transaction party, the broker is authenticly a transaction party.