(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.01.25 2016가단341817

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) 부산지방법원 2018.01.25 2016가단341817

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B, as a licensed real estate agent, operated the “E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Busan Jin-gu, Busan, and Defendant C was the brokerage assistant of Defendant B.

B. G parking lot (hereinafter referred to as “instant parking lot”) located in Busan Dong-gu F is owned by H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “H”).

C. On January 31, 2013, H and the instant parking lot under the name of J, the wife, entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to lease the lease deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.5 million (excluding value-added tax), the lease term from February 15, 2013 to January 31, 2016 (hereinafter “previous lease contract”). Around that time, the instant parking lot was handed over and operated.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On July 12, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with J to take over the right of lease under the previous lease agreement as a broker by the Defendants. On September 4, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 70 million to I, a lessee, as a premium.

The Defendants are obligated to verify the number of parking lots of the instant parking lot, the number of monthly parked vehicles, conditions of location, profit amount, etc., the term of lease of the previous rental agreement, and the fact that the previous rental agreement prohibits the transfer of right of lease in good managers while mediating the above contract with licensed real estate agents and their brokerage assistants, and to explain it to the Plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, in violation of the above duty, provided an explanation entirely different from the facts while delivering I’s horses to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 70 million for the premium. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendants merely introduced a contract entered into between I and K on July 12, 2013, and the Plaintiff is a party to the said contract.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.02.15 2017가단102201

-의정부지방법원 2018.08.16 2018나201802

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.06.20 2017가단4380

-부산지방법원 2015.11.25 2015가단211414

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.31 2017가단5166997