손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 8, 2017, Defendant B sold the Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant real estate”) E to the Plaintiff KRW 12 billion.
(hereinafter) At the time of the instant sales contract, Defendant D (G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office) and Defendant C (H Licensed Real Estate Agent Office) arranged the sales contract, and (1) written description of confirmation of the object of brokerage (hereinafter “the wall and exhaustion”), indicating that there is no leakage or crack on the wall.
B. The Plaintiff received the instant real estate from Defendant B around June 30, 2017.
C. On the other hand, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to Nonparty I on June 10, 2017, which was after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, but at the time of the lease contract, the Plaintiff did not set the instant real estate as a new model for the lessee.
However, on July 17, 2017, on which I affixed the date of the instant real estate director’s clerical error in the name of the director, there was a scoi in the ceiling and wall of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff, on which this day, attempted to spread out the remote area of the instant real estate and newly sub-scoied the sales.
Even after that, I continued to generate fung in the instant real estate, and I, a lessee of the instant real estate, terminated the lease agreement on October 14, 2017 and removed the instant real estate from the real estate.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff’s assertion) sold the instant real estate without notifying the Plaintiff, the buyer, despite any defect in water leakage, etc. in the instant real estate.
In addition, Defendant C and D, who arranged the instant sales contract, did not confirm the condition of the object of brokerage properly, made a false entry in the confirmation description of the object of brokerage.
Therefore, the Defendants are entitled to KRW 4,799,00, and ② the Plaintiff.