beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 36,00,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from November 25, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. 1) The Plaintiff is a lessee of a multi-family house located in Asan City (hereinafter “instant multi-family house”) 201 (hereinafter “instant house”) and Defendant B is a licensed real estate agent who has arranged the said lease contract. 2) The Defendant Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (Defendant Association) is a mutual aid business entity who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with Defendant B with the Association to compensate for the damage of the parties to the transaction regarding real estate brokerage.
According to the mutual aid provisions applicable to mutual aid contracts, the defendant association is to pay mutual aid money within 60 days from the receipt of the claim for mutual aid money unless there is any unavoidable reason.
B. (1) On January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the instant house as the broker of Defendant B with the owner D as KRW 45 million and paid the said lease deposit. (2) At the time of the conclusion of the said lease, only the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 455 million in the name of the Seocho-gu Saemaul Depository was completed with respect to the instant multi-family house, and at least five senior lessees with the fixed date were as follows.
(B) On the other hand, on November 4, 2011, prior to the lease contract of this case, the Defendant B arranged four lease contracts including lessee F, G, H and E with respect to the multi-family house prior to the lease contract of this case, including that the lessee E acts as a broker for the lease contract of KRW 52 million with respect to the lessee E’s multi-family house of KRW 402.
(The sum of the security deposit is KRW 27 million). 3. However, Defendant B did not explain to the Plaintiff that there was a prior lease security deposit between the lessee and the lessee while issuing a explanatory statement about the confirmation of the object of brokerage, and that there was no explanation about the existence of prior lease security deposit to the Plaintiff. The lessor did not demand related data from the lessor D.
(c).