logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2016.07.07 2015나56062
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

2...

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff was introduced each of the instant lands from Defendant B and C, while finding a site for the construction of a factory with a floor area of at least 150 square meters, and the Plaintiff stated that Defendant B and C were the purpose or motive for the purchase of each of the instant lands.

Defendant B and C stated that the Plaintiff may build a new factory with a floor area of at least 150 square meters, since the building-to-land ratio of each land of this case is 60%, and that the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract.

B) However, since each of the instant lands did not exceed 60% of the upper limit of the building-to-land ratio and it was impossible to construct a factory with a floor area of at least 150 square meters, it was inevitable to cancel the instant sales contract, and Defendant B and C incurred damages for forfeiture of down payment of KRW 143,00,000. D) Accordingly, Defendant B and C provided false information to the Plaintiff without properly verifying the building-to-land ratio of each of the instant lands, and violated the duty to confirm and explain the object of brokerage, Defendant B and C jointly are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 143,00,000,000 of the down payment of the instant sales contract.

(2) The Defendants Association jointly with Defendant B and C are liable to compensate for damages equivalent to the above KRW 143,00,000,000 through a mutual aid agreement. 2) The Defendants’ assertion did not mean that the Plaintiff would purchase a new site for the construction of a factory with a floor area of at least 150 square meters to Defendant B and C, and Defendant B and C have a floor area of at least 60 percent of the building-to-land ratio of each of the instant lands to the Plaintiff.

arrow