logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.01.14 2019나200769
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the money ordered to be paid under the following subparagraphs shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The scope of this court’s adjudication is in the first instance court’s claim for damages for tort, and ① jointly with the Defendants, and ② sought reimbursement of solatium against Defendant B. The first instance court partly accepted the Defendants’ claim for reimbursement of solatium, and dismissed the claim for reimbursement of solatium against Defendant B.

Since only the defendants filed an appeal, only the part of the claim seeking active damages against the defendants is the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is a licensed real estate agent who was operating the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office (hereinafter “instant office”), and Defendant B’s mother is a person who assisted the brokerage business at the instant office.

B. From September 15, 2015, the Defendant C Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) concluded a mutual aid agreement with Defendant B to compensate for damage caused property damage to a transaction party by intention or negligence during the course of real estate brokerage between September 15, 2015 and September 14, 2016. Article 19(9) of the Mutual Aid Agreement provides that “When requested the payment of mutual aid money from a mutual aid recipient, the mutual aid agreement shall be paid within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notification.”

C. Around June 2016, the Plaintiff visited Defendant B’s mother, a seller’s brokerage assistant, and two lots of G apartment H (hereinafter “instant apartment”) outside the F in Yangju-si, and examined the inside. D.

After that, on June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment from Codefendant D (hereinafter “D”) of the first instance court on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment at KRW 165 million; and (b) the Plaintiff included the terms, such as succeeding to the lessor status of the existing lease agreement (Lessee I) regarding the instant apartment.

arrow