손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim was to sell the land and the building on the land and the ground of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “C building”) residing on December 1, 2016 to D. On January 8, 2017, the Plaintiff was scheduled to rent Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., U.S. (hereinafter “F loan”) to be a director.
However, when the Defendant came to know of the fact that the Plaintiff owned the purchase price as a result of the sale of the above building C, on January 24, 2017, the Defendant solicited the sale of the newly built apartment J apartment (hereinafter “J apartment”) by Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, J apartment (hereinafter “J apartment”) and induced the termination of the existing loan agreement.
Accordingly, on February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed with Defendant and I to receive the principal member household of the Ulsan-dong-gu K ground-based K ground-based K-based (hereinafter “instant public-private partnership”) as his residential place on behalf of the Defendant and I during the period of occupancy of J apartment (hereinafter “instant public-private partnership”) and concluded a sales contract for J apartment on the instant residential area, and terminated the agreement on the FBD.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not implement the instant residential security agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff’s director without a specific residential area. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for KRW 15,640,000 for the loss of director’s expenses, etc. due to the violation of the instant residential security agreement, and for delay damages.
2. The following circumstances, which are: (a) the Defendant appears to have merely arranged the instant sales contract; (b) the Defendant did not appear to have any motive to agree to allow the Plaintiff to reside in the instant public notice telecom owned by the Plaintiff without any consideration; and (c) the Defendant did not appear to have agreed to allow the Plaintiff to reside in the instant public notice telecom.