beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.03.21 2018나35231

손해배상청구 등

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B and the defendant C.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) requested Defendant C, a licensed real estate agent, to intermediate sale of D apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On June 21, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment from Defendant Company in KRW 485,00,000, and signed and sealed the sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the content that the down payment shall be KRW 20,000,000, and signed and sealed it as a buyer. F and Defendant C signed and sealed the said sales contract as a broker.

Defendant C received KRW 2,00,000 as the provisional contract amount from the Plaintiff on the same day, and subsequently, Defendant C entered the said sales contract with a view to obtaining the seal of the Defendant Company in the said sales contract.

C. However, the Defendant Company did not affix a seal to the above sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. All of the instant sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company’s primary claim against the Defendant Company became final and conclusive. Defendant C concluded the instant sales contract on behalf of the Defendant Company on behalf of the Defendant Company, and thus, the instant sales contract was established.

However, the plaintiff legally rescinded the contract of this case by expressing the intent to refuse performance. The defendant company should pay the plaintiff a down payment of KRW 20,000,000 as compensation for damages, as well as the duty to return the plaintiff a down payment of KRW 2,00,000 paid to the defendant company as unjust enrichment.

B. Notwithstanding the fact that Defendant C did not clarify the intent to conclude the instant sales contract, if the Defendant Company explained to the Plaintiff that it explicitly expressed the intent to conclude the instant sales contract, the Defendant Company failed to perform its duty of care as a broker, thereby making a provisional contract amount to the Plaintiff.