(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.16 2018가단5201347

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.16 2018가단5201347

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment D (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the Defendant is a licensed real estate agent operating real estate brokerage business under the trade name “E”.

B. On August 8, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant’s brokerage to sell the instant apartment at KRW 600,000,000 (in the event of a contract, KRW 60,000,000,000, the remainder of KRW 540,000,000, each payment on October 5, 2018) (hereinafter “instant first contract”). Around that time, the Plaintiff received KRW 60,00,000 from the F deposit.

C. However, after the conclusion of the instant 1 contract, F asked the Defendant whether the said contract can be rescinded without giving up the down payment. Accordingly, the Defendant suggested that the Plaintiff “I would cancel the contract by returning the down payment to F, without receiving the brokerage commission, and I would conclude the contract with G, the new purchaser.”

The Plaintiff entered into an agreement between F and F on August 16, 2018 with the Defendant’s brokerage, stating that “The seller, due to the circumstances of the buyer, without penalty, redeems the buyer a down payment of KRW 60,000,000 and cancels the sales contract” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

E. On the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with G and H to sell the instant apartment at KRW 600,00,000 (in the event of a contract, KRW 60,000,000, the remainder of KRW 540,000,00,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”) as a broker of the Defendant, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant apartment on August 20, 208, and H in the future.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence 2, witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant, as a broker, is a broker, who acts as a broker for the contract Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, and the plaintiff is an apartment

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.11.04 2020가합14126

-대전지방법원 2018.01.25 2017나113653

-제주지방법원 2017.09.27 2016나7029

-서울남부지방법원 2020.08.20 2019나55291

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.12 2020가단5216038