Note 2

Attorney OOOO

Gwangju

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. Of the total litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

4. The part concerning the payment of money under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows: (a) the testimony of the first instance court No. 7-8 of the first instance judgment, “B,” i.e., the testimony of “B,” “B,” i.e., the witness status of the first instance court, Bright, and Ilsan,” and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance court 1. As such, this part of the facts of the premise is identical to the statement of the facts of the premise.

2. Parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts the following reasons as the cause of the claim in this case.

1) The Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, did not explain the fact that garbage, etc. was buried in the instant land to the Plaintiff, the buyer, in mediating the instant sale and purchase, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff incurred in constructing a new factory building on the instant land and treating the garbage, etc., and the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damage pursuant to Article 30 of the former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act.

2) The Defendant: (a) prepared and issued a written confirmation to the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff was negligent in acting as a broker with respect to the instant sales; and (b) promised to assume all civil responsibilities therefrom; and (c) agreed to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred from the construction of a factory building on the instant land and the disposal of the waste, etc.; and (b) accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the said damages in accordance with the agreement.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) The Defendant, who is not the Plaintiff, has mediated the instant transaction to the Heburie Bright, and there is no reason to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages.

2) At the time of the sale of the instant land, the seller explained that garbage, etc. was buried in the instant land.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Relevant provisions and legal principles

Since the legal relationship between a real estate broker and a client is the same as a delegation relationship under the Civil Act, a broker is obligated to perform brokerage duties requested with the care of a good manager in accordance with the contents of a request for brokerage pursuant to Article 681 of the Civil Act. Article 25(1) of the former Licensed Real Estate Agents Act provides that a broker whose brokerage is requested is liable for compensation for property damage caused to a transaction party by intention or negligence when he/she confirms the status, location and relationship of the relevant brokerage object, transaction or restriction on use pursuant to the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree, and provides that the broker has a duty to faithfully and accurately explain the relevant client among the persons who intend to acquire the right to the relevant brokerage object and present a certified copy of land cadastre, registration certificate, etc.

B. Determination

1) In light of the above provisions and legal principles, the following circumstances, which were acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of pleadings, including the following facts: ① The sales contract of this case does not contain any phrase stating that garbage, etc. were buried on the land at the time of the sale of this case, and the phrase stating that garbage, etc. were buried on the land at the time of the sale of this case. Since the Plaintiff purchased the land at the time of the construction of the factory, it was an important matter that the Plaintiff would not have any hindrance to the construction of the building on the land, and that the Plaintiff would not have been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff would not have been responsible for the construction of the new construction of the building on the land at the time of the sale of this case, and that the Plaintiff would not have been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff would not have been responsible for the construction of the new building on the land at the time of the sale of this case, and that the Plaintiff would not have been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff would not have been able to request the sale and purchase of the land at the time of this case.

2) As to this point, the defendant is the head of the Gu that mediated the sale and purchase of the instant land to Hebalt Korea, which is not the plaintiff, and the above evidence, and each statement in the evidence Nos. 23 and 24 added to the purport of the argument as follows: ① Hebalt Korea, the purchaser of the instant sales contract, stated, “Ibal Korea,” “Ibal Korea,” and “Ibal Korea, Ibal Korea,” which is the birth of Ibal Korea. The plaintiff is the birth of Ibal Korea. ② The plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land under the name of the plaintiff on March 26, 2014, and ③ the plaintiff was not liable for the remaining sales and purchase KRW 230 million,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000 won, which was delivered to the plaintiff under the name of the plaintiff 20,000,000 won.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the above duty of care.

C. Limitation on liability

The comparative negligence set-off system under the Civil Act is intended to take into account the obligee’s equivalent care as to the occurrence of damages in accordance with the principle of equity in a case where the obligee fails to fulfill his/her duty required under the principle of good faith. Thus, even if the damages were incurred or expanded due to such failure, even if such failure is simple negligence, it shall be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the injured party. If the injured party’s negligence is acknowledged, the court shall take into account the liability for damages and the amount thereof in determining the damages. In a case where the obligor does not assert the fault of the injured party, the court shall ex officio deliberate and decide on the same in a case where negligence is acknowledged through litigation materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da30

In this case, according to the health stand and the circumstances mentioned above, even if the Plaintiff and the Dog-si tried to construct a factory building on the ground of the instant land used as farmland by Dog-si, and the Defendant, among individuals at the time of the instant sale and purchase, took a minor phrase on garbage reclamation, and thus, the Defendant et al. was negligent by neglecting and readily concluding the instant sales contract, despite the duty of care to clearly confirm the possibility of construction of a factory building on the ground of the instant land or by making an on-site investigation and investigation into the current status. The Plaintiff’s above negligence seems to have contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the instant damage. However, considering such circumstances as the Plaintiff’s negligence and loss, it is reasonable to set the Defendant’s fault ratio at 25%.

4. Scope of liability for damages

피고가 원고에게 배상하여야 할 손해액에 관하여 보건대, 불법행위로 인한 재산상 손해는 위법한 가해행위로 인하여 발생한 재산상 불이익, 즉 그 위법행위가 없었더라 면 존재하였을 재산상태와 그 위법행위가 가해진 현재의 재산상태의 차이를 말하는 것 이고, 갑 제3, 4, 5, 7 내지 16호증의 각 기재 또는 영상, 제1심 감정인 이■■의 감정 결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 , 이 사건 토지에 매립된 쓰레기 등을 처리하지 않고 이 사건 토지 지상에 건물을 신축하는 경우 부동침하로 인한 건물 균열 발생 등 이 예상되는 사실, 제1심 감정인 이■■은 원고가 감정사항에서 특정하고 있는 수량과 원고로부터 제출받은 현장사진을 기초로 이 사건 토지에 매립된 쓰레기 등의 처리비용 합계가 42,372,000원에 달한다는 의견을 제시한 사실, 원고가 이 사건 토지에 매립된 쓰레기 등을 처리하는 비용으로 40,645,000원을 지출한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 위 인 정 사실에 의하면 원고가 피고의 이 사건 토지 매매 중개상의 과실로 입은 손해는 원 고가 지출한 쓰레기 등의 처리비용 합계 40,645,000원으로 봄이 상당하다.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 10,161,250 won (i.e., KRW 40,645,000 x 0.25) equivalent to 25% of the Defendant’s liability ratio against the Plaintiff’s amount of damages (i.e., KRW 40,645,00) and to pay to the Plaintiff 15% interest per annum under the Civil Act from September 7, 2014 to July 14, 2017, which is the date of the judgment of this court where it is deemed reasonable to dispute as to the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, as sought by the Plaintiff, as the result of the tort (i.e., KRW 40,645,00) and the amount of money calculated by the Defendant from September 7, 2014 to the date of full payment from the next day to the date of the Plaintiff’s claim (i.e., only a part of the Plaintiff’s claim, but even if the Defendant is recognized the Defendant’s liability, it is apparent

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as there is no reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, part of the original appeal shall be accepted, and the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above recognition amount in the judgment of first instance shall be revoked, and the payment of the above money shall be ordered to be made to the defendant.

Secretary-Support

No. 50