손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's respective claims against the defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B is the former owner of the Seo-gu Daejeon District and the multi-family house with the fourth floor above that ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and Defendant C is the real estate broker.
B. On July 24, 2011, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from Defendant B as a broker of Defendant C with a price of KRW 830 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and decided to acquire the facilities installed on the instant real estate in KRW 100 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). After completing the payment of the price for the instant real estate and facilities, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on September 2, 201.
C. On January 8, 2010, the instant building had been approved for use, and a new building ledger was drafted. On October 22, 2014, the instant building was registered as a non-compliant building on the ground that “(i) a two-story house of the second floor is divided into eight households; ② a two-story house of the third floor is divided into eight households; ③ an illegal household division into eight households; and ③ an illegal extension of 25.9 square meters in a multi-family house (one household).”
The Plaintiff received notification from the competent authority that the 5th floor rooftop of the instant building should be removed from an unauthorized building, and removed the 5th floor rooftop, and paid KRW 5,054,90 for enforcement fine around May 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. Defendant B, as a seller, has the duty of disclosure under the principle of good faith, and Defendant C, despite the duty to explain the confirmation of the object of brokerage pursuant to Article 25 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act, failed to notify the Plaintiff of the circumstances where the building of this case was illegally extended, thereby allowing the Plaintiff to enter into the sales contract of this case.
The Plaintiff due to the above tort committed by the Defendants.