손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs who ordered payment is revoked next.
The defendant is respectively against the plaintiffs.
1. The following facts may be found either as a matter of dispute between the parties or as a whole in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and Eul evidence No. 2:
The plaintiffs are co-inheritors as the children of the network D (alias E, death on May 1, 2006, hereinafter referred to as "D"), and the defendant has been acting as an intermediary or agent for contracts such as purchase and sale of real estate with D's new trust from around 2004.
B. On April 29, 2005, the Defendant arranged for a transaction to purchase 2,100 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) out of the G forest in Young-si, which is owned by five persons, including F, etc., D purchased the said forest land from F, etc. (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”), and on December 22, 2005, the instant forest was registered the ownership transfer registration under Plaintiff A’s name on December 22, 2005.
(D) The part purchased by the Plaintiff was 2,100 square meters, not the entire G of the Yeongdeungpo-gu G, and the real estate, the ownership transfer registration of which was completed under the Plaintiff’s name, is 6,942 square meters of the land of H 6,942 square meters, which was divided from the G real estate of the Yeongdeungpo-gu, Young-gu, G. The judgment as to the assertion of deception;
A. The plaintiffs' assertion that in the process of arranging the sales contract of this case for D, although they agreed to purchase KRW 700 million from the owners of the forest of this case, they were to purchase KRW 1 billion from D. It was false that they obtained KRW 1 billion in total from D as the purchase price for the forest of this case, and acquired KRW 300 million among them.
Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay 150 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiffs, who are co-inheritors of D.
B. Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the entries of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 23 (including the number in the case of each number) are sufficient to recognize that the defendant deceivingd D and acquired 300 million won by deceiving D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, the above evidence and evidence are as follows.