손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 116,350,00 for Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 123,70,000 for Plaintiff B; and (c) for each of them, from September 28, 2012 to March 2016.
1. The facts below the basic facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence No. 1, 2, and 4, evidence No. 5-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 6, evidence No. 7-1, 2, 3, and evidence No. 14, and the whole purport of the pleadings can be acknowledged.
The Defendant, under the trade name of “Co. D” (hereinafter “D”), made a sales advertisement to the effect that “if investing KRW 130 million in the instant commercial building, it shall guarantee revenues of KRW 120,000 per month”, while carrying out the sales agency business of the stores located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).
B. Therefore, the Defendant, even though he was unable to be granted the authority to vicariously sell the instant commercial building from F, the majority equity right holder of the instant commercial building, was designated as the agent of E, the remaining equity right holder, and entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff on August 25, 2012 with respect to the instant commercial building 123 as KRW 143 million. On August 25, 2012, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 135 million out of the sales price in cash and substitute the remainder of KRW 8 million with the deposit of the tenants under subparagraph 123 of the instant commercial building. ② On August 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff for the total amount of KRW 124,143 million,000,000 among the sales price, but agreed to receive KRW 135,50,000,000,000 in cash, and agreed to substitute the sales deposit of the instant commercial building.
C. The Plaintiffs paid a total of KRW 135 million to the Defendant on August 25, 2012, KRW 10 million, KRW 4 million on August 27, 2012, KRW 90 million on September 17, 2012, and KRW 135 million on September 17, 2012, and Plaintiff B paid KRW 735 million to the Defendant in addition to the above amount on September 17, 2012.
However, the defendant shall make each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 123 and 124 of the commercial building of this case to the plaintiffs.