logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.01.15 2018가단500641
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 103,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 21, 2018 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The non-party D leased the E apartment F (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the public rental housing owned by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Defendant B introduced the instant apartment to the Plaintiff on April 2013, and on April 28, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sub-lease agreement (hereinafter “sub-lease agreement”) with the deposit for sub-lease as to the instant apartment as of April 28, 2016.

The following contents are specified in the special agreement of the sub-lease contract of this case:

The above house is a public rental apartment of LH with the consent of sub-lease, but the lessee can not make a move-in report and a fixed date without the consent of sub-lease to LH.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 80 million to Defendant B, and around December 2015, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million to Defendant B’s account in terms of the increase of deposit.

Defendant B is a licensed real estate agent belonging to the Defendant C Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”).

Defendant B could sell the instant apartment to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant B would be responsible for paying KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, and would allow the Plaintiff to purchase the instant apartment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 13.5 million, which was part of the KRW 30 million, to Defendant B’s account on November 27, 2016.

On June 15, 2017, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation notified Nonparty D of the termination of the instant lease agreement, and filed a request for evacuation with Nonparty D, Plaintiff, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, and determination as to the claim against defendant B with the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Defendant B, despite being aware that the apartment house in this case was not sub-leased, had the Plaintiff deceiving the Plaintiff, thereby causing damage to the amount equivalent to the deposit for sub-lease of this case, and had the Plaintiff purchase it in lots 1,35 million won.

arrow