Whether a bond broker becomes an agent for both parties; or

A bond brokerage company is not only one of the representatives, but also the representative of the debtor when the creditor represents the creditor. On the contrary, when the debtor returns to the opposite, he will act as the representative of the creditor.

Article 124 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na1738 delivered on January 30, 1979

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

We examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

The purport of the judgment of the court below is that the non-party 1 is the representative of the ○○ Industrial Complex and engages in the business of recommending the price or the price. When entering into a lending relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant with the real estate of this case as security, the plaintiff's agent is not the plaintiff's agent, and the defendant's agent was the same non-party as the defendant's agent in cancelling provisional registration established on the same real estate for the purpose of providing a loan necessary for the defendant to obtain a loan from the bank. The repayment of the principal and interest is merely the defendant's agent, and there is no representative relation with the plaintiff. Thus, unless the same non-party fails to deliver the principal and interest received from

However, according to the records, the defendant also received money from the same non-party as the plaintiff himself/herself, and paid the difference of interest to his/her Dong. The above provisional registration was cancelled through the same non-party. Thus, the non-party knew as his/her agent, and paid the money borrowed from the bank to the same non-party as a part of the above loan. The plaintiff also claims that the non-party, such as the non-party, who is a bond broker, received interest for two months from the defendant (63 of the record) on two occasions (63 of the record).

Therefore, in such a case, a person who intends to borrow the bond brokerage business with a priority to the public health-related loan shall borrow a certain amount under the specified interest rate without being superior to it, and a person who intends to borrow the money shall make a certain amount under the specified interest rate if only the collateral relationship is reliable, and the bond brokerage business operator shall relay the bond brokerage business operator and receive a certain amount of fee.

In such a case, if a person who intends to borrow money first and then makes such a request, the intermediary will be a unilateral negotiation with the person who intends to lend money as his/her agent, and if the person who intends to lend money to the other party first and then makes such a request, the intermediary will act as his/her agent first, and if the intermediary will act as his/her agent with the person who intends to borrow money, the intermediary will act as his/her agent first, it would result in unreasonable results because the relation of the representative has been unilaterally set on the basis of an ambiguous fact that either party has first.

In the above case, if the bond broker is not a representative of either party, and if the creditor represents the creditor, he will act as the representative of the debtor later, and if he returns to the opposite, he will act as the representative of the creditor later.

However, the court below reported the same non-party as the defendant's representative, and according to the testimony of the non-party 2 of the witness of the court of first instance, Dong transferred 2,40,000 won as 0,000 won to the plaintiff in the name of the above non-party 1's own interest and interest of the defendant to the non-party 3 as the defendant's interest and interest of the non-party 4 at that time, and although the non-party 4's testimony is supported by the non-party 4's testimony, the court below did not believe it, and the non-party 5 and the non-party 6's testimony as the witness who is the non-party 5 and the non-party 6, and the non-party 8 (registration Right Certificate) was under way of the plaintiff's testimony, and the non-party 1 was not subject to the above non-party 1's loan from the bank to the above non-party 1's interest and interest of the plaintiff (the plaintiff's interest and interest of the non-party 1 was not subject to the above loan.).

In full view of all the above circumstances, the court below's testimony made by the above non-party 2 and the non-party 4 and it was found that the money was paid as debt repayment by the defendant, which was consistent with the ordinary rule of experience in our country, but otherwise, the court below's actions in the first instance court's testimony did not go against the rule of experience in selecting evidence and thereby causing mistake of facts. In addition, with respect to the remainder of the above debt, excluding the above 2.4 million won, the court below's decision should be confirmed by exercising its right of explanation as to whether the above debt was paid or not, since there is no big opinion between the plaintiff and the defendant as to whether the above debt was paid or not. Thus, without exercising its right of explanation, the court below held that even if the above debt of 2.4 million won is deemed to have been repaid, it is not that the secured debt was paid in full, but according to the records, the non-party 4 at the court of first instance's testimony that the defendant did not pay the remainder to the non-party 2.

Therefore, the lower court should determine whether the remainder of the debt (other than 2.4 million won) remains, and dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on the merits by deeming that the Defendant’s secured debt in this case was fully repaid, if the remainder of the principal and interest are repaid by the time of closing of argument after remand.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ha-ju (Presiding Justice)