1. Defendant B’s KRW 85 million and the Plaintiff’s 15% per annum from June 5, 2018 to May 31, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff engaged in a new construction-sale business of multi-household housing was a long-standing relationship with Defendant B, which runs real estate brokerage business. The Plaintiff borrowed a total of KRW 1.9 billion from Defendant B as indicated below four times as follows. The Plaintiff paid KRW 85,00,000 to Defendant C’s account, which is the spouse of Defendant B or Defendant B, as a brokerage commission.

On January 29, 2016, 500,000, Defendant B 20,000,000 on December 30, 2016, Defendant C 40,000,000,000 on July 30, 2016, Defendant C 15,000,000,000 on July 26, 2017, 200, Defendant C 15,000,000,000 on September 30, 200,000 on September 8, 2017, 200, Defendant C10,000 on a total of 1,90,000,0000,000

B. The Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against Defendant B and D on the charge of violating the Act on the Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users (hereinafter “Credit Business Act”), and on July 19, 2019, Defendant B and D appealed were sentenced to imprisonment for eight months and fine of thirty million won and suspended execution of imprisonment for two years (in Incheon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2018 High Court Decision 201Da2899). Defendant A and D appealed for this reason.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 9, 10, 12, 15 through 20, Eul evidence 3, 4 and 5 (including each number of branches), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. Defendant B, in violation of the Credit Business Act, received a brokerage commission of KRW 85 million from the Plaintiff, which constitutes a tort, and Defendant C assisted Defendant B’s tort by lending its own account to Defendant B. As such, the Defendants are liable to pay KRW 85 million and damages for delay to the Plaintiff as joint tortfeasor.

B. 1) According to the above facts of recognition as to Defendant B, it is determined that the amount that Defendant B received from the Plaintiff constitutes a brokerage commission rather than a mere acceptance fee or honorarium.