beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
3...
Reasons
The reasons why a party member of the first instance court should explain about this case are as follows: “20,00,000 won” in Part 3 of the first instance judgment; “228,000,000 won”; “Defendant J” in Part 7 is as “Defendant B”; “Defendant J” in Part 7 is as “Defendant B”; “from August 19, 2016,” “from August 20, 2016,” “from August 20, 2016,” and “from August 20, 2016,” and “the following judgments are added to the corresponding part,” and this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Additional Determinations
A. The Plaintiff sold the instant real estate to G on June 25, 2014, with a view to preventing the instant housing from being sold to G beyond the market price of KRW 285 million, even though D sold the instant housing as an immediate seller, the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate at a lower price than the market price. According to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement, if the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security was reduced to KRW 65 million according to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff could have been refunded the full amount of the lease deposit, and thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s amount of damages was KRW 65 million.
However, as seen earlier, when the Plaintiff agreed to the instant lease agreement with D, it was reimbursed KRW 135 million with D for the remainder of KRW 250 million, which repaid the secured debt of the right to collateral security at the purchase price of the instant house. If D fulfilled the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement and the maximum debt amount was reduced to KRW 65 million, the Plaintiff could at least receive a refund of KRW 190 million (250 million - 65 million). Accordingly, the amount of damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to Defendant B’s mistake is KRW 55 million (190 million - 135 million).
It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff could have been refunded the full amount of the lease deposit if the maximum debt amount of the right to collateral security was reduced to 65 million won on the sole basis of the statement of No. 11 and the Plaintiff’s assertion.