1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. In mediating a lease contract for a part of a multi-family house, a broker who has a liability for damages provides the lessee with data on the legal relationship, etc. of the multi-family house necessary to determine whether the lessee is able to receive a refund of the deposit due to the termination of the lease contract. Therefore, it shall not be limited to confirming and explaining the legal relationship, etc. of the object of brokerage indicated on the real estate register. The lessee is obligated to request the lessee to verify the data on the deposit for lease, the date and termination date, etc. of the lease except for the portion regarding personal information among the lease agreements of other lessees who already live in the multi-family house and live in the multi-family house, and explain and present such data to the lessee. In addition, if the lessee fails to comply with a request for data on the lease deposit, the date and termination date, etc. of the lease, the agent is obligated to enter the details in the “the matters regarding the right of object which are not verified or publicly notified” in the form prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act.

Therefore, when a broker causes damage to the property of a lessee by intention or negligence, he/she shall be liable to compensate for such damage under Article 30 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.

(see Supreme Court Decision 201Da63857, Jan. 26, 2012). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, Defendant B resided in the instant multi-family house with the lessee D, as seen earlier.