beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.12.20 2017가단110837

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 17,500,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from May 17, 2016 to December 20, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 4, 2012, the Plaintiff, as a joint broker of the Defendants, a licensed real estate agent, leased the Fho Lake (hereinafter “instant housing”) among the instant E-ground buildings owned by Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with the lease deposit of KRW 60 million from August 20, 2012 to August 20, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid the full amount of the lease deposit, and received the move-in report and the fixed date on August 20, 2012.

B. In the description of confirmation of the object of brokerage delivered by the Defendants to the Plaintiff while mediating the instant lease agreement, the phrase “matters of rights other than ownership” in the column for “matters of rights other than ownership” is indicated as “the maximum amount of claims against G bank in land and buildings” and the phrase “matters of rights other than actual relation of rights or matters not publicly notified” in the column for “matters of rights regarding objects” in the order of priority lessee 20 million = 320 million.

C. At the time of entering into the instant lease agreement and thereafter, the current status of lease on the instant housing is as follows. The first priority lessee who moved in the instant housing before the Plaintiff at the time of the instant lease agreement is KRW 570,000,000 in total of the lease deposit stated in the sequence 1 through 7 below.

A. 1 H 4: 200,000,00 on March 25, 2011; 230,000,00 on April 27, 2014; Gah 60,000,00 on August 3, 201; 60,00 on September 4, 201; 60,00; 60,00,00; 30,00,00 on December 4, 201; 60,00; 60,00,00,000 on December 5, 200, 200; 30,00,000; 60,00,00 or 75,00,00 on February 6, 200, 2005; 17,06, 10,005, 206, 17, 2010

On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff received 25 million won on the date of distribution as to the instant housing from the court AG, and the Plaintiff was rather than the Plaintiff.