logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.08.11 2014가단102514
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as its annual rate from July 5, 2013 to August 11, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a credit business under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a licensed real estate agent, who runs a real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.”

B. With respect to the F apartment 201, 508, Dong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the Plaintiff received a claim for the refund of the deposit from Nonparty E as security on July 20, 2012 under the former lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) prepared by the Defendant with respect to the F apartment 201, 508, Dong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On October 5, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50,000,000 to E with the interest rate of KRW 30,00,000 on October 16, 2012, and the interest rate of arrears was set at 2% per month and 3% per month.

C. The lease contract of this case is written by the lessee as E and the lessor as the owner of the real estate of this case, G and 110 million won. Each broker of the contract and the confirmation description of the object of brokerage attached thereto are signed and sealed by the Defendant. The lease contract of this case is accompanied by the certificate of mutual aid issued by the Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association.

E does not pay the principal and interest any longer after the agreed interest was paid by July 4, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 6, Gap evidence 2, 3, 5, Gap evidence 4-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant, as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, conspired with E and a person in unsound name, forged the instant lease contract, or aided and abetted such tort, thereby obtaining a loan of KRW 80 million from the Plaintiff.

Even if it did not reach a public offering or assistance, the Defendant, as a real estate broker, violated the duty of care under the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”), by preparing and delivering the instant lease contract without mediating the whole lease transaction of the instant real estate, and thus, the Defendant loans the Plaintiff with compensation for damages arising from tort.

arrow