All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2023Da259743 Decided November 30, 2023 【Tenancy Deposit】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] In a case where a realtor, although not having a duty to directly investigate, confirm, and explain, conveyed misinformation concerning a matter that is important for a brokerage client to decide whether or not to enter into a contract as though it was true, thereby making the said brokerage client enter into an agreement believing such information to be true, whether the said realtor is considered to have violated a duty to take fiduciary care and sincerely oversee transactions (affirmative) [2] Details of the duty of the real estate broker who oversees a multi-household residential lease agreement on some units towards a lessee-client, and in a case where the real estate agent causes the lessee-client property loss by violating such a duty either intentionally or by negligence, whether the said realtor is liable for damages pursuant to Article 30 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act (affirmative) [3] In the case where: (a) Party A, a real estate agent under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, who oversaw a multi-household residential lease agreement of Party B, notified Party B of the maximum amount secured by the claim of floating sum mortgage created on the pertinent multi-household residence and the actual amount of secured debt and provided an explanation thereof; (b) however, Realtor A neither specifically confirmed the matters relating to the amount of tenant security deposits paid by other tenants or the period of leasehold or lease expiry nor presented evidentiary materials; (c) instead, Realtor A only recorded the total amount of the tenancy security deposit, which had been orally confirmed by the lessor, in the “actual state of ownership and liens or encumbrances on property or any rights and encumbrances over property that is not publicly announced” of the prospectus of the property subject to brokerage; (d) subsequently, a decision on the commencement of an auction to enforce a security interest in the said multi-household residence, and the examination of the state of how a final and conclusive date was determined showed that the total amount of the security deposits paid by the tenants having rights prior to that of Party B was considerably in excess of the amount recorded in the prospectus of the property subject to brokerage; and (e) moreover, the pertinent multi-household residence was sold at a price considerably lower than the amount of appraised value, whereby Party B was unable to receive dividends from his or her claim for return of security deposits as a result of the payment of preferential dividends to tenants with a small amount of tenancy deposit money and floating sum mortgage holders, the case holding that Realtor A did not take fiduciary duty of care as a broker of multi-household residence lease agreement | |
