Supreme Court Rules Real Estate Agents Can Be Held Liable for Loan Fraud Over Fake Contracts

The Supreme Court has ruled that a real estate agent who drafted a false jeonse (lump-sum housing deposit lease) contract without conducting actual brokerage can also be held liable for damages related to loan fraud.

The Supreme Court's First Division (Presiding Justice Seo Kyung-hwan) overturned the lower court's ruling, which had dismissed the plaintiff's claims in a loan lawsuit filed by lender A against real estate agent B, and remanded the case to the Ulsan District Court.

In 2020, a group led by an individual named C, who recruited fake tenants, forged jeonse contracts, and obtained loans by using the jeonse deposits as collateral from lenders including company A, received final guilty verdicts for fraud.

Subsequently, lender A filed a lawsuit not only against C, but also against real estate agent B, who had drafted the jeonse contracts.

While the first instance court acknowledged C's liability for the fraud, it dismissed company A's claim against the real estate agent on the grounds that B likely was unaware of the crime. The second instance court reached the same conclusion, but the Supreme Court's judgment was different.

The Supreme Court pointed out that "under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, a licensed real estate agent must draft and issue a transaction contract only when a brokerage is completed, and drafting and issuing a contract without an actual brokerage enables one to sufficiently anticipate that a third party might believe it to be genuine and engage in a transaction."

The court determined that because B drafted the jeonse contract without conducting any brokerage activities, solely trusting C's word and without meeting the lessor and lessee, B violated the duty of care under the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, which consequently caused company A to suffer damages equivalent to the loan amount.

The Supreme Court added, "This can be evaluated as an aiding and abetting act that facilitated the loan fraud committed by C and others."

However, given the circumstances suggesting that the real estate agent was also deceived by the fraud ring, the court ordered a retrial to determine the specific scope of damages.
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.