beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2014.05.15 2013가합463 (1)

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 7, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant D, a licensed real estate agent, for the exchange of land and its ground telecom (hereinafter “instant exchange contract”). At the time of the instant exchange contract, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the exchange of two parcels of land and its ground telecom (hereinafter “instant telecomcom”) owned in the name of the Defendant C, Nam-gu Incheon E-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “In Incheon”) and the Plaintiff’s debt amounting to KRW 110 million,00,000,000,000,000 won, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the debt amounting to KRW 140,000,000,000,000,000,0000 won, and both the Plaintiff and Defendant B’s present facility.”

The Plaintiff and Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer on each exchanged real estate on June 10, 2010.

B. In the process of mediating the instant exchange contract, the Plaintiff embezzled KRW 10,000,000,000, which was received from the Plaintiff, and arbitrarily performed a consulting contract under the name of the Plaintiff, and filed a complaint against the Defendant D on the ground that the Plaintiff concluded an exchange contract with respect to the current status of the Defendant B’s maternity. The prosecutor of the Incheon District Prosecutors’ Office prosecuted the Defendant D on August 18, 201 as the facts charged for embezzlement, fabrication of private documents, and uttering of the above investigation documents. On the same day, regarding the violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, among G’s statements requested for the first exchange contract with the Plaintiff, the contents explained by B on the current status of the said subcontractor, and the contents described by G on the pocketbook are identical to the contents explained by the Defendant D (the Plaintiff) to the complainant, and the actual inspection of the market price and the complainant’s market price is consistent with the change suit by the Defendant.

In light of the above point.