beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.04.06 2017나51548

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. Article 25(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, and Article 21(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act of the same Act provide that, where a practicing licensed real estate agent is requested to act as a broker, he/she shall confirm the status, location and right relationship of the relevant object of brokerage, transaction or restriction on use pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, ownership, lease on a deposit basis, mortgage, superficies, and right of lease before the mediation is completed, and explain faithfully and correctly to the broker who intends to acquire the right of the relevant object of brokerage, and present evidentiary materials, such as a certified copy of land cadastre or a comprehensive real estate registration certificate, and a certificate

Furthermore, given that the legal relationship between a real estate broker and a client is similar to that of a delegation relationship under the Civil Act, a broker who receives a request for brokerage is obliged to investigate, confirm and explain the legal relationship, etc. of the object of brokerage with the care of a good manager (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da14903, Jun. 28, 2013). In cases where a broker intentionally or negligently causes property damage to a transaction party in breach of a general duty of care, he/she is liable to compensate for it pursuant to

(2) As to the instant case, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the health stand, the evidence presented earlier, and the purport of the entire argument as a result of the Plaintiff’s personal examination, namely, ① the instant officetel site at the time when Defendant C mediates the instant sales contract, had already been completed the registration of ownership transfer based on trust to the trust company, and ② the right to exercise the sales right of the instant officetel under the instant trust agreement.