The Supreme Court has ruled that if a licensed real estate agent fails to properly verify a lease contract and a loan fraud occurs, the agent must compensate for the losses.
The Supreme Court's First Division (presiding Justice Seo Kyung-hwan) said on the 26th that on May 29 it overturned an appellate ruling that did not recognize the liability of licensed real estate agent B in a lending repayment claim filed by lending company A and remanded the case to the Ulsan District Court.
Earlier, a person surnamed Lee and others were convicted for recruiting fake tenants and forging jeonse contracts to obtain jeonse deposit collateral loans from financial firms and embezzling the funds.
Company A, based on the forged lease contract submitted by Lee, executed a jeonse deposit collateral loan to Lee and paid 100 million won. At the time of the loan, A asked B, who brokered the lease, to verify whether the lease contract was genuine.
However, when the lease contract was prepared, the landlord who owned the house was not present, and B did not confirm the landlord's intent. B did not obtain even the minimum documents, such as a seal certificate, that could confirm intent. Lee claimed to represent both the landlord and the tenant, and B, relying only on the words of Lee, whom B knew, prepared the lease contract.
Company A filed a lawsuit, saying that Lee, who committed the loan fraud, and B, who prepared the false lease contract, were both liable for damages.
In the first trial, the court ordered Lee to compensate A for the unpaid principal of 91.23 million won. It did not recognize B's liability, saying, "The responsibility to examine whether the collateral is false lies with A, which is in the business of lending."
Company A appealed against the ruling, targeting B. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, saying, "The first-instance court's judgment is justified."
However, the Supreme Court found that licensed real estate agent B also bore responsibility for the loan fraud. The court said, "B's act of preparing only the jeonse contract without any brokerage activity violated the duty of care under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act," adding, "As a result, A, which executed a jeonse deposit collateral loan to a fake tenant, can be deemed to have suffered a loss equivalent to the loan amount."
It added, "B's conduct can be evaluated as aiding and abetting that facilitated Lee's misappropriation of the loan," and "A's loss resulted from B's breach of the duty of care."