beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,00,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from February 8, 2019 to February 19, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 3, 2019, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement of 35,000,000 won for deposit money on the F from among multi-household housing on the fourth floor, Y-gun, and 2 lots of land owned D (hereinafter “instant loan”) through C, a brokerage assistant of the Defendant, for the purpose of leasing a house to be residing in the workplace, and transferred KRW 3,00,000,000 to the owner-related account notified by C on the same day.
At the time, the Plaintiff and C visited the instant lending at the latest, and then entered into a verbal contract, C did not show the Plaintiff’s copy of the register of the instant lending.
B. On February 7, 2019, C concluded that it is difficult for the Plaintiff’s husband G to return the deposit to the current lender due to the Plaintiff’s shortage of funds from the owner of the loan of this case, and the written contract was prepared after L, and the Plaintiff solicited D to pay the remainder of the deposit amount of KRW 32,00,000. The Plaintiff paid KRW 32,00,000 to D, the owner on February 8, 2019.
C. At the time of the above solicitation, C confirmed that “D is the owner of the instant loan,” and the brokerage office stated that “D is the exclusive responsibility for the instant loan building.” As to G’s establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis as to the instant loan, C asked C not yet ask the owner of the right to lease on a deposit basis, and asked C to request the owner of the right to lease on a deposit basis until the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis.
In the course of preparing a lease agreement on February 8, 2019, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the ownership registration was not made on the instant loan, and on December 13, 2018, the establishment registration was completed on the instant loan amounting to KRW 498,00,000 with respect to the maximum debt amount, KRW 498,00,000, and KRW 10,000 with respect to the debtor H and the mortgagee.
(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). From around this time, C told Plaintiff or G to the effect that the instant loan owner would have obtained a loan, but it did not mean that the loan owner would have obtained a loan.