2015 Ghana 11309 Damage, etc.

A person shall be appointed.

1

2

3

4

5

6

October 7, 2016

April 7, 2017

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 14,283,672 with respect to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B, D, F, and G with respect thereto.

10. From June 1, 201, Defendant C and E shall pay the amount calculated by applying each ratio of 5% per annum from October 7, 2016 to April 7, 2017, and 15% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The Defendants jointly serve the Plaintiff KRW 14,283,672 and the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.

D. The payment of 15% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 27, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant B on the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “the instant house”), and on December 12, 2014, in the name of Defendant F on December 11, 2014.

21. The registration of transfer of ownership is completed on the grounds of sale;

B. On December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) as a broker of Defendant C on December 5, 2014, with respect to the registration deposit amounting to KRW 100 million; and (b) the lease deposit period of KRW 100 million; and (c) the lease period of KRW 2014,00,000.

12. From October 30 to December 29, 2016, a lease contract for lease (hereinafter “the instant first lease contract”) was concluded.

C. On December 17, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant F and the instant leased premises as a broker, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million and the lease term from December 29, 2014 to December 29, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant secondary lease agreement”).

D. The Plaintiff: (a) on the date of the instant first lease agreement, KRW 10 million to Defendant B; and (b) on December 29, 2014.

Defendant F paid KRW 90 million to Defendant F.

E. On November 11, 2015, as to the instant housing, the entry registration following the decision to voluntarily commence the sale of H on November 11, 2015 was completed (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

F. On July 28, 2016, the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 85,716,328 as the fixed date lessee on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure.

G. Defendant C and D are licensed real estate agents, Defendant E is the broker assistant of Defendant D, and Defendant G is the mutual-aid agent who takes over the liability for damages incurred when a licensed real estate agent intentionally or by negligence causes property damage to the transaction party in the course of acting as a broker between Defendant D and Defendant D.

H. Defendant E prepared a false senior lease list on the instant housing in collusion with Defendant F at the time of the first lease agreement of this case, and obtained a false senior lease list with Defendant B’s seal affixed at the time of the first lease agreement of this case (hereinafter “the false senior lease list of this case”).

was drawn up.

I. At the time 1 and 2 of the instant case, the instant housing had a real lease agreement as shown below.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings 2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

A joint tort under the Civil Act is established when multiple persons’ objectively related joint acts cause damage to others, and neither a conspiracy among the actors, nor a common intent, nor a common perception among the actors is required. In addition, such joint acts may be recognized as jointly related to the occurrence of damage, such as the acquisition of stolen property caused by embezzlement, as well as the case where a joint act itself or aids and abets and abets a tort (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da31137, Apr. 12, 2016, etc.).

According to the above facts, as to the housing of this case, from Defendant B to Defendant F, 2014.

12. The first lease contract of this case was concluded with Defendant F, the owner of the previous land, and the second lease contract of this case was linked to each other. The second lease contract of this case was included in the first lease contract of this case. The plaintiff who trusted the false priority lease contract of this case and concluded the lease contract of this case was liable for damages due to the failure to receive the whole amount of the lease deposit. Furthermore, considering the following facts: Gap evidence 2-1, evidence 6-1, evidence 6-1, evidence 6-1, evidence 6-2, defendant Eul's testimony, and defendant Eul's personal inquiry as to the whole, it appears that the plaintiff was not liable for damages to the plaintiff as the broker of this case's second lease contract of this case; Eul's agent was also liable for damages to the plaintiff as the broker of this case's second lease contract of this case; Eul's agent was also liable for damages to the plaintiff as the broker of this case's second lease contract of this case; and Eul's agent of this case was also liable for damages to the plaintiff's third party EF.

B. Determination of the limitation of liability assertion

Defendant D and G asserts that when the Plaintiff requested brokerage to the broker and leased part of N, such as the instant housing, the Plaintiff also is responsible for investigating and verifying the transaction relationship as the client. Since the Plaintiff neglected such responsibilities, the said Defendants’ responsibilities should be limited to the appropriate scope.

However, as seen earlier, Defendant D is liable for damages as a joint tortfeasor who actively prepares a false senior lease agreement with Defendant D, who is one of his intermediary assistants, and who is a joint tortfeasor who induces the Plaintiff. Therefore, limiting the above Defendants’ liability is not consistent with the principle of justice and fairness. Therefore, the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants jointly filed an application for change of the purport of this case and the cause of claim on July 28, 2016, since the amount of damages equivalent to the lease deposit which the Plaintiff had not been refunded to the Plaintiff due to the Defendants’ joint tort (10 million won - dividends 85, 716, 328 won) and the following day after the copy of the application for change of the purport of this case and the cause of the claim were served on the Defendants (it is determined that the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the day after the duplicate of the complaint of this case was served, but the Plaintiff was paid dividends of KRW 85,716,328 from the date of distribution of the auction procedure of this case, and the Plaintiff’s damages were determined after the date of the above date of distribution, and thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s claim is rejected). From October 6, 2016 to the date of execution of this case’s claim for delay damages, Defendant C and E shall be dismissed within the scope of 15% per annum of each of this case’s obligation and damages.

Judges Song Jae-in

A person shall be appointed.