logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.15 2016가단5225387
손해배상 청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 9,800,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 4, 2014 to June 15, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B is a licensed real estate agent operating real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance”) concluded a guarantee insurance contract with Defendant B to guarantee liability for damages when Defendant B is liable for damages by causing property damage to a transaction party due to intentional or negligent conduct in performing the business of a licensed real estate agent (hereinafter “instant guarantee insurance contract”) between Defendant B and the insurance amount as KRW 100 million, and the insurance period from October 11, 2012 to October 10, 2013.

B. On November 17, 2012, the Plaintiff visited the instant building and the instant room two times with Defendant B’s brokerage assistant, and leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 60,00,000 from the owner E to the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office building (hereinafter “instant building”) 607,00,000, and the term of lease from November 19, 2012 to November 18, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). The Plaintiff paid the said lease deposit by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 60,00,00,00 from the owner E to the owner E under the brokerage of Defendant B (hereinafter “instant building”). The lessor was not the lessor E in the form of preparing the contract and signed and sealed the contract as his agent.

C. The instant building was composed of 51 rooms in total, and was already used as a publicly announced source, and in the event that the auction procedure is in progress due to the absence of any empty space at the time of the instant lease agreement, there was a risk that the Plaintiff would not receive the deposit for lease in the distribution procedure, depending on the number of prior lessees and the amount of the deposit for lease deposit.

Defendant B is acting as a broker for the instant lease agreement.

arrow