2016 Ghana 541402 Damage (as defined)

Maap○

Chicago-si

Law Firm Doz.

Attorney Lee In-bok

○ ○

Chicago-si

Attorney Lee Do-young

November 14, 2017

February 23, 2018

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 19, 893, 776 won with 5% interest per annum from November 24, 2016 to February 23, 2018, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 54, 558, 960 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition

A. On June 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with K 3,442 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) with the purchase price fixed at KRW 156,00,000, and selling it to the largest ○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”). The Defendant arranged for each of the instant sales contracts as a licensed real estate agent.

B. In order to receive a loan from a bank, the largest ○○ requested the bank to prepare a contract by raising the purchase price more than the actual sales price. Under the Defendant’s brokerage, the sales contract, stating the purchase price as KRW 260,000, and KRW 000, was entered into between the Plaintiff and the largest ○○○○. The Defendant signed and sealed the said sales contract as a broker.

C. As above, a fine for negligence was imposed on the Plaintiff on the wind that prepares a sales contract by raising the purchase price in actual amount, and the Plaintiff paid a fine for negligence of KRW 8,800,00 on March 21, 2016, and on April 15, 2016, the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, also imposed a fine for negligence of KRW 8,654,20 on the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent.

D. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff entered the transaction price in the sales contract differently from the actual transaction price. On the grounds that the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax applied to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 129 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act was excluded, thereby imposing KRW 27,162,960 as capital gains tax, etc. from the transfer of the instant land, and the Plaintiff paid all of the said capital gains tax, etc. on November 24, 2016.

E. The Plaintiff asked ○○, one’s own death village, to sell the instant land, and ○○○ asked ○○ to screen the purchaser. Kim○-○ was in contact with the Defendant, and the Defendant was acting as a broker for the instant land, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to Kim○-○, a broker fee and a handout name. Of which, five million won was paid to the Defendant.

[Ground for recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1-7, Eul evidence 8-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 4-1 and Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

According to the above facts, although the Defendant, as a licensed real estate agent, should not prepare a contract document stating a false transaction details of the transaction that he/she acts as a broker, it is reasonable to enter the sale price of the instant land in violation of such duty and prepare a sales contract. However, the Plaintiff is also liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to such unlawful act, by making the sale price falsely entered in the buyer’s request. However, the Plaintiff is also liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the occurrence or expansion of damages, as well as various circumstances indicated in the pleadings, such as the degree of contribution to the Plaintiff’s occurrence or expansion of damages, the details of the recommendation, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s preparation of a sales contract stating the purchase price higher than the actual amount at the buyer’s request. However, in full view of the fact that there is no benefit from the Plaintiff, other than this, it is reasonable to limit the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the Plaintiff to

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Damage equivalent to an administrative fine;

The Plaintiff asserts that he/she has the obligation to compensate the Defendant for damages equivalent to the fine for negligence of KRW 8,800, and KRW 000 imposed on him/her. However, in response to the buyer’s request, the said fine for negligence is imposed separately on the Defendant for the Plaintiff’s mistake that prepared the sales contract by stating the false purchase price in response to the buyer’s request, and thus, there is a proximate causal relation between the Defendant’s tort and the imposition of the said fine for negligence. Not only is it difficult to see that it is difficult, but also if the Plaintiff has the ability to fully assume the responsibility for his/her adult, it is reasonable to deem that the said penal provision should be borne by the Plaintiff and that the Defendant

(b) Loss equivalent to capital gains tax.

16, 297, 776 won ( = 27, 162, 960 won x 0.6)

(c) The excessive payment of brokerage commission.

The plaintiff asserts that 18, 596, and 00 won remaining after deducting the maximum amount of brokerage commission of 20,000 won, 1, 404, and 00 won from the defendant's 00 won, was obligated to pay to the plaintiff as compensation for damages or unjust enrichment. However, when considering the overall purport of the argument on the statement of No. 2 and the testimony of Kim ○, the plaintiff remitted 20,000 won to the account of Kim○, 00 won, 7,000, and 00 won from 00 won to 00 won, 00 won from the defendant's 1,00 won to 0,000 won, 00 won to the defendant's 1,00 won to 0,000 won to 0,000 won to the defendant's 0,000 won to 0,000 won to 0,00 won to each of the defendant's testimony.

(d) Sub-committee;

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages calculated at the rate of 19,893,776 won ( = 16,297,776 won + 3,596,00 won) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from November 24, 2016 to February 23, 2018, which is the date of the instant judgment where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation to pay damages to the Plaintiff from November 24, 2016, when the copy of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Dong-han