beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the basic facts is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where “Defendant C” is deemed to be “Nonindicted C,” and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B is liable for damages (1) In mediating the instant lease contract to the Plaintiff, Defendant B, an authorized broker, is liable for compensation on the ground that he did not notify the Plaintiff of the method of establishing the right to lease on a deposit basis as a means of security for lease on a deposit basis, and that he did not notify the existence of other senior leases that may affect the Plaintiff’s recovery of lease on a deposit basis. As such, Defendant B, an authorized broker, is liable for damages not to recover KRW 21 million from the trusted Plaintiff.
(2) Inasmuch as there exist individual grounds for which the Defendants could not file a move-in report to the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant lease contract, Defendant B was forced to give guidance as a means of security for lease on a deposit basis, and the Plaintiff explained the existence and amount of prior lease that existed in the instant building at the time of entering into the instant lease contract, there was no violation of any obligation against the Plaintiff.
Even if Defendant B breached his duty in the process of the above brokerage, the Plaintiff’s damage was due to the unexpected circumstance that ① the instant building and site were sold at a price lower than the market price in the auction procedure, and ② the Plaintiff’s moving-in report was made on June 23, 2014 after two years and three months have passed since the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease contract and received the fixed date, and the Plaintiff was paid the sale price to the third party who newly acquired the right to preferential payment of the instant site. Therefore, there is no causation between the Plaintiff’s failure to refund the deposit and the Defendant B’s violation of his duty.