Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Yang & Yang, Attorneys Choi Young-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others (Law Firm Tae-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

July 9, 2010 (Defendant 1 and 2)

September 17, 2010 (Defendant 3, 4)

1. A. The defendant 1, the defendant 1 (joint defendant 1 in the judgment of the Supreme Court), and the defendant 2 (defendant 1 in the judgment of the Supreme Court) shall pay 5% interest per annum from July 23, 2005 to November 5, 2010, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association shall pay 50 million interest per annum from July 23, 2005 to the 79,000,000 interest per annum, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The defendant Korean Real Estate Agent Association shall pay 5% interest per annum from July 23, 2005 to the 79,000,000 interest per annum, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Defendant 3 pays to Plaintiff 2 5% per annum from October 22, 2005 to November 5, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. Defendant 3 pays 50 million won per annum from October 22, 2005 to the day of full payment, and 50% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. Defendant 3 (Co-Defendant 3 of the judgment of the second instance) and each of the above 109,000 won among Defendant 3 (Co-Defendant 3 of the judgment of the second instance) and 109,000,000 won per annum from October 22, 2005 to the day of full payment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The remainder of the plaintiff 1's claim against the defendant 1 and 2 and the remainder of the plaintiff 2's claim against the defendant 3 are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 50% of the costs incurred between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are the same Plaintiff; the remainder is the same Plaintiff; 50% of the costs incurred between Plaintiff 2 and Defendant 3 is the same; and the remainder is the same Defendant; and the part incurred between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 is the same Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant 1 and 2 shall pay to the plaintiff 1 58,00,000 won each of the above amounts, 50,000,000 won from July 23, 2005 to the last delivery date of the application for amendment of the claim of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment. The plaintiff 2 shall pay to the plaintiff 3, 3 shall be 218,000,000 won, and 50,00,000 won from the above amounts to the defendant 3 and each of them shall be 50,00,000 won from the next day to the last delivery date of the application for amendment of the claim of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant 1 operates a mutual real estate brokerage office called “Real Estateland,” and Defendant 2 assists in the operation of Defendant 1’s above brokerage office, and Defendant 3 also is a real estate broker.

B. On December 2003, Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Newjin Construction Co., Ltd.”) entered into a reconstruction contract with the owner of the said 14 parcel of land, such as Dobong-dong 41-264, Seocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to remove the above 14 parcel of land and newly construct an apartment (hereinafter “new apartment”).

C. On August 11, 2004, Nonparty 1, one of the co-owners, prepared and issued to Nonparty 2 a new apartment reconstruction project, which was being newly constructed pursuant to the above reconstruction contract, a confirmation letter stating that “it is confirmed that there is no objection even if the pre-sale of the remaining buildings is performed in the process of the progress of the project except for the shares of the owner (special right of sale).”

D. On July 7, 2005, Plaintiff 1 entered into a sales contract with Defendant 1 and 2 for the new apartment 12th 202 newly constructed at the time between the new type of housing and the new type of housing on July 7, 2005 (the agreement was made to reduce the sale price of KRW 158,000,000 (the agreement was made to reduce the sale price of KRW 158,000,000). The sale contract with September 30, 2005 scheduled occupancy date (hereinafter “instant one sales contract”); the down payment of KRW 8 million on the day, and the remainder of KRW 150,000 on July 22, 2005, Defendant 1 and Nonparty 2 confirmed Nonparty 1’s confirmation statement, Nonparty 2’s personal seal impression and Plaintiff 1’s resident registration certificate, respectively.

E. Meanwhile, on April 13, 2005, Nonparty 3 concluded a sales contract for new apartment units Nos. 200,000,000 and April 19, 2005 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) between the new type of apartment units No. 12 and the new type of apartment units No. 3 as a broker of Defendant 3, and paid all the sales price to the new type of apartment units. On August 21, 2005, Plaintiff 2 concluded a sales contract for new type of apartment units No. 200,000 (the purchase price No. 218,00,000,000) with Defendant 3 as the broker of Defendant 3, and the sales contract for new type of apartment units No. 200,000,000 (the purchase price No. 218,000,000,0000) was decided to be reduced to Defendant 20,000,0000 won.

F. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Da271300, Nov. 8, 2007) against landowners on the grounds that there was no evidence supporting that a new type of case, which is only a contractor of a new construction project, was granted individual power of representation regarding the sale of the general sale portion in writing with the seal of the owner’s representative affixed on November 8, 2007 or was ratified ex post facto. Such judgment was affirmed in the appellate court (Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na120823, Jul. 17, 2009) and the final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da70104, Feb. 25, 2010).

G. Meanwhile, Defendant Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association concluded a mutual aid agreement with Defendant 1 and 3 with the content that a member of the mutual aid association, within the limit of KRW 50,000,000, incurred property damage to the transaction party in the course of acting as a broker for real estate, to pay the amount equivalent to the percentage of members’ fault. The sales contract of this case 1 and 2-1 and the sales contract of this case was concluded within the liability period of each mutual aid agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 8, 11, 14, Eul 1, 3 and 4 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The part of the plaintiff 1's claim against the defendant 1 and 2

(1) According to Articles 16(1), 17(1), and 19(1) of the former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 6236 of Jan. 28, 200), a broker shall act as a broker in good faith and sincerity. If a broker is requested to act as a broker, he/she shall confirm the state, location, and rights of the object of brokerage, the relationship of transaction or rights under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, and other matters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and present them in writing to the broker who intends to acquire the right to the object of brokerage, and explain it faithfully and correctly, and if the broker intentionally or negligently causes damage to the property of the transaction party, he/she shall be liable to compensate for the damage.

The above facts and the above evidence revealed as follows. In other words, new type of apartment construction is merely a contractor who has contracted new apartment construction with the above land owners and is not in the position of exercise of time. According to the above rebuilding contract, in principle, when new type of apartment sale was sold in advance, individual power of sale was granted or ratification was obtained after the completion of the contract with the representative of the project owner. The confirmation letter in the name of the non-party 1 is not the purpose of granting individual right of sale of apartment units. The non-party 1 did not completely attach the data that the representative of the land owner is the owner. However, the defendant 1 and 2 did not examine the new type of sale right or the representative of the non-party 2, who is the owner of the land, with the confirmation letter and the certificate of personal seal affixed to the non-party 1's resident registration certificate and the non-party 1's representative director, and it is reasonable to view that the defendants violated the above duty of care and duty of explanation to the plaintiff 1 due to the above act of sale in lots.

However, in the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, with respect to the apartment reconstructed which is reconstructed as the plaintiff 1, the ownership relationship cannot be confirmed by the register. Thus, it was not attributable to the defendant 1 and 2, but due to the fact that the defendant 1 and 2 knew only the horses of the real estate and endeavored to confirm the right of disposal of the new type apartment apartment, or the existence of the right of representation, etc. through another way in advance, among the real estate, it was found that the above plaintiff's negligence was caused by the damage. Therefore, since the above plaintiff's negligence was considered as the cause of the damage, it shall be considered in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the above defendants, but it is reasonable to 50% of the negligence ratio in light of the above facts. Accordingly, the amount of compensation to be paid by the defendant 1 and 2 shall be 79,00,000 won (=158,00

D. Defendant 1 asserts that even if he mediated the conclusion of the instant one sale contract, it is reasonable to deem that Plaintiff 1 knew or could have known that he could not obtain the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the instant one sale contract from July 14, 2006, which filed a lawsuit claiming the registration of ownership transfer against the landowner, and that the instant lawsuit was filed on March 12, 2010 after the lapse of three years from that time, the Plaintiff’s damage claim had already been completed the short-term extinctive prescription prior to the instant lawsuit.

However, in a claim for damages arising from a tort at an interval of time between the harmful act and the actual damage occurred, the date when the plaintiff 1 and 2 knew of the tort, which is the starting point of the extinctive prescription period, is insufficient only to the extent that there was awareness of the damage inflicted on the plaintiff 1 in an conceptual and dynamic state. It is reasonable to interpret that such damage is realized thereafter, and that the victim cannot seek compensation for the damage caused by such act as a tort (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Da25168, Jan. 12, 1990; 200Da11836, Jan. 19, 201; 200Da11836, Jan. 19, 200), and that the damage arising from the plaintiff 1 and 2's mistake, which is the point of time when the claim for transfer registration of ownership against the landowner, becomes final and conclusive. Therefore, the plaintiff 1's claim for damages against the above defendant 10-2, which is the above defendant 215.

B. The part of the plaintiff 2's claim against the defendant 3

(1) As seen earlier, the sales contract of this case 2 was concluded by a new type without legitimate authority or authority of disposal from the beginning. Accordingly, it was impossible for Plaintiff 2 to acquire ownership as to the above 401 under the sales contract of this case. Ultimately, Plaintiff 2 was unable to achieve the purpose of the contract by losing the claim for ownership transfer registration against the land owner in the lawsuit lawsuit. Defendant 3 is liable to compensate Plaintiff 2 for damages due to Defendant 3’s failure to achieve the purpose of the sales contract of this case as to whether Plaintiff 2 had the power to sell the new type of products at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case with Nonparty 3, i.e., whether Nonparty 1 is the owner of the building, whether new type of products were the owner of the building, and whether Plaintiff 2 was authorized to dispose of the property from the owner of the building or the owner of the building, even though there was an occupational duty to verify whether the new type of products was authorized to dispose of the property from the owner of the building. Defendant 3’s breach of such duty of care.

B. The plaintiff 2 cannot confirm the ownership of the apartment reconstructed which is reconstructed by the registration ledger when the sales contract of the purchase and sale contract of this case and the sales contract of this case 2-1. Thus, the plaintiff 2 failed to conclude the contract with the defendant 3's end of the real estate and to confirm the right to dispose of the new type apartment and the right to dispose of it in his own name. The above plaintiff's negligence also caused damages. Thus, the above defendant's negligence should be considered in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the above defendant, but it is reasonable to 50% in light of the above facts. Accordingly, the amount of compensation to be paid by the defendant 3 is 109,00,000 won (=218,000,000 x 50%) and damages for delay.

C. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association

(1) According to the above facts, pursuant to the mutual aid agreement with Defendant 1, the Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association has a duty to pay the Plaintiff 1 and each of the parties (the Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association shall not be deemed to be in a quasi-joint and several liability relationship with Defendant 2) the amount equivalent to the amount of the mutual aid coverage of KRW 50 million and the delay damages thereof, and Defendant 3 and each of the parties 2 are liable to pay the Plaintiff 1 each of the above amount of KRW 109,000,000 which is equivalent to the amount of the mutual aid coverage of KRW 50,000,000 which is equivalent to the amount of the mutual aid coverage of KRW 109,00,000 and the delay damages.

D. The defendant 1 and 3's each intermediary's negligence is recognized, under the terms and conditions of mutual aid, the mutual aid fund shall expire if it is not exercised within two years from the date of the occurrence of the accident. Since the lawsuit in this case was filed on March 12, 2010 after two years from the date of the occurrence of the accident, the plaintiffs' claim for mutual aid fund payment has already expired before the lawsuit in this case.

The right to claim insurance money is only abstract right before the occurrence of the insurance accident, but it becomes possible to exercise its right from the time when the insurance accident occurred. Thus, barring any special circumstance, in principle, the statute of limitations for the right to claim insurance money should begin to run from the time the insurance accident occurred. However, even in a case where it is objectively unclear whether the insurance accident occurred, and it is impossible for the holder of the right to claim insurance money to know of the occurrence of the insurance accident without negligence, the statute of limitations for the right to claim insurance money should be interpreted to run from the time the insurance accident occurred. Since it is too harsh to the holder of the right to claim insurance money, and it cannot be seen to correspond to the concept of social justice and equity as well as to the reason for the existence of the statute of limitations system, in a case where it is impossible to confirm the occurrence of the insurance accident from the objective perspective, the statute of limitations for the right to claim insurance money will run from the time the holder of the right to claim insurance money knew or could have known (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da3168, Apr. 27, 2001).

In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs knew or could have known the occurrence of a mutual-aid accident only after the judgment of dismissal was rendered in a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against land owners on February 25, 2010, which became final and conclusive. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the claim for mutual-aid is run from that time. However, since it is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed before the lapse of two years from that time, the aforementioned assertion by the Defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

Ultimately, from July 23, 200, the day following the date of payment of the sale price to Plaintiff 1, Defendant 1, and 2, the above 79,000,000 won and its delayed payment damages from July 23, 2005 to November 5, 2010, which are deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the above Defendants’ obligation to pay 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, to 0.0% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the defendant 1 and the Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association shall pay 50,000 won per annum from the above 79,000 won per annum to 10,000 won per annum from the above 20,000 won per annum from the above 20,000 won per annum from the day following the above 20,000 won per annum of the claim of this case to 20.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs 1' claims against the defendant 1 and 2, and the claims against the defendant 2 against the defendant 3 are accepted within the scope of each above recognition. Each of the remaining claims is dismissed without merit. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association are justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.

Judges Cho Sung-hee (Presiding Judge)