손해배상
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On August 25, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the company’s employees D to purchase the land of Pyeongtaek-gun in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”) from the said company for KRW 50,800,000.
B. Around August 25, 2010, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 45,784,000,000, and around August 31, 2010. Around November 201, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 914,370 of public charges related to the sale and purchase, but did not have been transferred the ownership of the said land.
C. The F, a real representative of C, was indicted for committing the crime that received 49,784,000 won from the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff did not have any intent or ability to transfer the land ownership to the Plaintiff even after receiving the purchase price of the land from the Plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da2012), and the said court found the above criminal facts on May 26, 2016 and convicted the F, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment that the defendant arranged the plaintiff to purchase the land of this case and suffered damages equivalent to the total amount of KRW 50,800,000 paid to the plaintiff by arranging the plaintiff to purchase the land of this case. The defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the above money and damages for delay due to tort.
According to the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 12, and 1, the defendant introduced G to the plaintiff, who is an employee of the corporation C, and recommended the sale and purchase of the land of this case, it is recognized that the above facts and other evidence submitted by the plaintiff are acknowledged, but the defendant conspired with F.
In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had recommended the conclusion of a sales contract even if he or she was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff could not have acquired the ownership of the instant land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.