beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs ordering payment is revoked.
Defendant D, Defendant D.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. (1) Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial is the owner of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office No. 604, 702, and 706 of an officetel of reinforced concrete structure on the ground (hereinafter “instant No. 604, 702, and 706”) and Defendant D is a licensed real estate agent who has opened and operates the “G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government under his own name.
(2) However, among the above officetels, 702 Nos. 706, 706, and 706, are indicated as the fluorial sign at 702.
(3) On May 14, 2013, Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement with Defendant D’s brokerage, setting the lease agreement as between June 1, 2013 and May 30, 2015, with respect to Defendant D’s 706, and the lease agreement between June 1, 2013 and May 30, 2015, and paid KRW 4.5 million to C on May 14, 2013, and KRW 8,55 million on June 1, 2013. Defendant D’s employee without verifying the indication on the registry of this case 706, which is the object of brokerage, and without explaining that the lease agreement was 706, as indicated in the present sentence of this case, and indicating that it was 706,06.
(4) Thereafter, Defendant B, at the lessor’s request, moved to the instant 604 around June 2013, and continued to reside in the instant 604.
(5) On July 3, 2013, Plaintiff A entered into a lease agreement with Defendant D’s brokerage, setting the lease agreement as between July 15, 2013 and July 14, 2015, with respect to Defendant D’s 706, with a deposit of KRW 90 million for lease, and the lease agreement as between July 15, 2013 and July 14, 2015. Plaintiff A paid KRW 450,000,000 to C on July 3, 2013, and KRW 85,500,000 on July 15, 2013, Plaintiff A moved into the instant 702 (on the port signature No. 7066), without properly verifying the indication on the registry of this case as indicated in the instant 706, and Plaintiff A indicated that the instant 706 lease agreement was 706.