The case holding that the act of the broker, etc. selling real estate to the broker at a high price compared with each other and acquiring the difference constitutes a tort.

In light of the fact that Article 15 subparagraph 1 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act prohibits a broker, etc. from causing any error in the judgement of the client by false words or other means concerning important matters relating to the transaction of the object of brokerage, and Article 38 (2) of the same Act provides that the violator shall be punished, the case holding that the broker, etc. sells real estate to the broker, etc. at a higher price than each other and the acquisition of the difference constitutes a tort under civil law.

Article 750 of the Civil Act, Article 15 subparagraph 1 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na49322 delivered on June 21, 1991

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case on the premise that the defendant or the above non-party 1 was a joint tortfeasor on the ground that the defendant or the above non-party 1 did not have a duty to notify the plaintiff of the contents of the contract with the plaintiff at a price higher than that of the seller's request for sale of each of the above real estate and the seller sold the difference at a price higher than that of the sale request to the above non-party 1, and it is better for the plaintiff to use the difference as a broker or a cost, on the ground that the plaintiff and the above non-party 1 did not have any evidence to support that the defendant or the above non-party 1 caused the plaintiff to determine the purchase price of each of the above real estate as above by deceiving the plaintiff as to the phenomenon of each of the above real estate in this case, since the defendant or the above non-party 1 could not be deemed to have acquired money from the plaintiff by deceiving the plaintiff.

(2) However, according to the records, the above non-party 1's act of selling the real estate at a higher price than that requested by the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 and delegated the difference to the non-party 1 as an intermediary fee or expense, it is merely merely a fact that the above non-party 1 was investigated by the investigation agency as a criminal suspect, and the above non-party 1's statement is contradictory to each other. The above non-party 6's 0's 0's 0's 0's 0's 00' 's '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' '' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - - - - - - - .

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the premise of this fact on the ground that the seller requested the above non-party 1 to sell the difference at a price higher than the sale request price and delegated the difference to the above non-party 1 to use it as brokerage fees or expenses. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to illegal act or illegal act which misleads the facts contrary to the rules of evidence and affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

(3) Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)