Plaintiff

Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

September 30, 2010

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Da52100 Decided July 7, 2010

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30,000,000 won jointly and severally with the co-defendant 1 and 2 of the first instance trial and 5% per annum from April 11, 2008 to the last service of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters asserted by the Defendant in the trial, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined

The defendant asserts that the defendant has no obligation to pay the amount of the mutual aid for all accidents that occur during the period of mutual aid agreements concluded with the co-defendant 2 of the first instance trial, since the defendant paid 50 million won to the non-party 2 damaged by the co-defendant 2 of the first instance trial separately from this case, the defendant does not have any obligation to pay the amount of the mutual aid for the accident occurred by the co-defendant 2 of the first instance trial.

In light of the overall purport of arguments, Gap evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, the defendant's provision of Article 3-5 of the Mutual Aid Agreement applied at the time of entering into the Mutual Aid Agreement is "the maximum amount to be paid by the Association as compensation for the accident, which is agreed upon between the parties to the Mutual Aid Agreement." Articles 1 and 2-1 of the Mutual Aid Clause provide that "where a person who is a real estate broker bears property damage to a transaction party in performing a real estate brokerage act, the defendant shall compensate for the damage suffered by the transaction party by imposing liability under the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter "Licensed Real Estate Agents Act"), but the amount covered by the defendant shall be limited to the amount covered by the defendant." Article 4 of the Rules on Mutual Aid Service of the defendant applied at the time of the instant Lease Agreement and the Mutual Aid Agreement provides that "the amount covered by the defendant shall be limited to the amount covered by the defendant's total amount covered by the provisions of the Mutual Aid Agreement No. 10 and the indemnity Agreement No. 8.

Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Eul evidence 2 and Eul evidence 4-1 and 2, the issue of interpreting the above compensation limit in this case relating to Article 3-5 of the defendant's mutual aid agreement applied at the time of entering into the mutual aid agreement, and the defendant's above provision was revised to the effect that "the amount of mutual aid" means the total compensation limit that the defendant should pay for the brokerage accident that occurs during the period of mutual aid, and the agreement between the defendant and the mutual aid contract party" was approved by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on June 12, 2008, and thereafter, the above provision was revised to the effect that "the total compensation limit which the defendant compensates is entitled to receive from the defendant" was not applied to the plaintiff as long as the above provision was amended to the effect that Article 2-1 of the mutual aid agreement was not applied to the plaintiff within the scope of the amount of mutual aid agreement as stated in the revised provision of the above 10-year mutual aid agreement."

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is accepted as reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yang Sung-ju (Presiding Judge) Kim Jae-hee