▲The photo above has nothing to do with the content of the article.


The building went to auction and the tenant who lost the jeonse deposit filed a civil lawsuit against the realtor to get some of it back.



According to the legal community today (6th), Chief Judge Ban Jeong-woo of the Civil 87 Seoul Central District Court recently ruled in favor of some of the plaintiffs in the first trial of a lawsuit filed by tenant A against a real estate agent and Seoul Guarantee Insurance.



The court said, "The realtor and Seoul Guarantee Insurance jointly pay 40 million won to Mr. A."



This amount is equivalent to 40% of the 100 million won deposit that Mr. A lost.



In August 2015, Mr. A rented a room in a building in Guro-gu, Seoul for two years with a deposit of 100 million won.



There were about 70 rooms in this building, and when Mr. A signed the contract, the rental deposit of the tenants who received the fixed date earlier than that amounted to 2,928.1 million won.



A maximum mortgage of 2.22 billion won in total was also set up.



The building was put up for auction in January 2018.



About 4.9 billion won of the sale proceeds were first distributed to the mortgage holder and senior tenants, so Mr. A did not receive a single penny.



Mr. A filed a lawsuit, saying that the realtor did not inform him of this danger while brokering his lease.



The real estate agent protested, saying, "It was difficult to know the truth because the landlord did not provide relevant data."



However, the court held that Mr. A was responsible for compensating for the damages suffered, saying, "The broker violated the duty to mediate in good faith."



The judge said, "Unless the confirmation and description of the intermediary object has not stated at all about the deposit of the tenant who is senior to the plaintiff (Mr. A) or the possibility of a small tenant, the plaintiff has conveyed false information." It is highly probable that they did not sign the agreement."



However, Mr. A was also responsible for negligently investigating the building's market price or rights, and the broker's liability for compensation was limited to 40%.



As neither side appealed, the judgment became final.