(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.02.15 2018가단10422

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.02.15 2018가단10422

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 25, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the company’s employees D to purchase the land of Pyeongtaek-gun in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”) from the said company for KRW 50,800,000.

B. Around August 25, 2010, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 45,784,000,000, and around August 31, 2010. Around November 201, 2010, the Plaintiff paid KRW 914,370 of public charges related to the sale and purchase, but did not have been transferred the ownership of the said land.

C. The F, a real representative of C, was indicted for committing the crime that received 49,784,000 won from the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff did not have any intent or ability to transfer the land ownership to the Plaintiff even after receiving the purchase price of the land from the Plaintiff (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Da2012), and the said court found the above criminal facts on May 26, 2016 and convicted the F, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment that the defendant arranged the plaintiff to purchase the land of this case and suffered damages equivalent to the total amount of KRW 50,800,000 paid to the plaintiff by arranging the plaintiff to purchase the land of this case. The defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the above money and damages for delay due to tort.

According to the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 12, and 1, the defendant introduced G to the plaintiff, who is an employee of the corporation C, and recommended the sale and purchase of the land of this case, it is recognized that the above facts and other evidence submitted by the plaintiff are acknowledged, but the defendant conspired with F.

In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had recommended the conclusion of a sales contract even if he or she was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff could not have acquired the ownership of the instant land, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2020.01.21 2019고단1701

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.05.15 2017가단1934

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2013.05.08 2012고정969

-춘천지방법원 2018.10.16 2018고단755

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2015.06.26 2014고단780