beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 150,00,000 as well as 20% per annum from August 20, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant B obtained from F the power of representation for the conclusion of the lease agreement from the 6th floor beer of the H building or the 6th floor beer of the H building, which is a F’s ownership, from F, notwithstanding the fact that Defendant B, by deceiving the Plaintiff as his/her agent on June 18, 2012, entered into a lease agreement with F to lease the said celebner with the terms that the Plaintiff leases the said celebner from F for a period from July 10, 2012 to 12 months from the lease term (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff acquired 150,000,000 won out of the lease deposit from the Plaintiff.
B. F rejected the validity of the instant lease agreement, and rejected the delivery of the said Sacop.
Therefore, the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on January 16, 2014 was rendered on the ground that the Plaintiff sought the return of the lease deposit against F as Seoul Western District Court 2013Gahap1952, but F had not granted the right to representation regarding the conclusion of the lease contract to the Defendant B, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5, 8 through 10 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. According to the above basic facts as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 150,000,000 with compensation for damages arising from the above unlawful act and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 20, 2014 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.
3. Determination on claims against Defendant C, D, and E
A. Defendant C, D, and E (hereinafter “Defendant C, etc.”) asserted by the Plaintiff, even though they were not qualified as licensed real estate agents, mediated the conclusion of the instant lease agreement with them as licensed real estate agents, and in the process, F did not confirm whether the intention to conclude the lease agreement or the power of attorney was conferred.