beta
Text
1. The plaintiff
A. Defendant B’s KRW 35,00,000 and for this, KRW 5% per annum from December 11, 2014 to December 2, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. D puts an article on the Internet car page, “F,” with respect to the leased object of the first floor E of Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, which he leased from Defendant B (hereinafter “the leased object of this case”). The Plaintiff confirmed that the leased object of this case was to lease the leased object of this case.
B. The Plaintiff sought a brokerage transaction rather than direct trade, and D introduced H (I after the name of the G Licensed Real Estate Agent) as a member of the G Licensed Real Estate Agent.
H delivered to the Plaintiff the name of the office chief of G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office. On April 16, 2013, the Plaintiff, the father of Defendant B, entered into a contract with the lease deposit of KRW 35 million and the lease term of KRW 12 months from April 16, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million to the Defendant B.
C. At the time of the instant lease agreement, H had no problem with the Plaintiff while the leased object was unregistered, and the Plaintiff filed a move-in report with the said domicile and received the fixed date.
In addition, the lease agreement that H took place at the time of the instant lease agreement was entered as a broker by Defendant C, the representative of G Licensed Real Estate Agent in Busan L, and Defendant C’s seal was affixed, and the certificate of mutual aid under the mutual aid agreement between Defendant Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) and G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office was attached.
E. The above mutual aid agreement provides that a broker shall be liable for damages incurred to a transaction party by intention or negligence while acting as a real estate broker, and the amount of the mutual aid agreement shall be KRW 100 million, and the period of mutual aid shall be from June 29, 2012 to June 28, 2013.
F. However, since then, all the buildings with the object of lease of this case were subject to compulsory auction, and the plaintiff is subject to a move-in report to unregistered heading rooms, and thus the amount of the lease deposit is equivalent.