beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff and KRW 15,000,000.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B is a licensed real estate agent operating “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”.
The Defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Association”) is a mutual aid business entity which has entered into a mutual aid agreement with Defendant B (hereinafter referred to as the “instant mutual aid agreement”) to guarantee liability for damages arising from the Defendant B’s act of authorized brokerage within the limit of KRW 100 million by setting the period of mutual aid with Defendant B from June 26, 2010 to June 25, 201.
B. On November 13, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with D as to the instant building, stating that it was delegated by D with the authority to conclude the lease agreement with regard to the Busan Jin-gu E 1528 (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by Defendant B through the brokerage of Defendant B (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to F, a lease deposit, from November 15, 201 to November 14, 201, with respect to the instant building.
C. At the time of the instant lease agreement, F showed D’s power of attorney while being delegated by D with the authority to conclude the lease agreement, and Defendant B did not directly verify whether the right of attorney was granted to D.
However, F was delegated by D with the authority to enter into a lease contract with the lease deposit of KRW 1 million and KRW 650,000 per month for the instant building, and did not have been delegated with the authority to enter into a lease contract with the lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000. The Plaintiff did not refund the lease deposit of KRW 20,000.
E.F had no authority to conclude a lease contract with D, the owner of the instant building, which was delegated with the authority to conclude a lease contract of KRW 20 million. Therefore, F would have to conclude the said contract even if it received the lease deposit from the victim A (Plaintiff).