logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.05.23 2017가단6576
손해배상금
Text

1. The Defendant jointly with the Plaintiff KRW 65,00,000, and 5% per annum from July 2, 2017 to May 23, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 22, 2015, a licensed real estate agent B (C Licensed Real Estate Agent) concluded a lease agreement of KRW 65 million with respect to the Plaintiff and the instant real estate, and delivered KRW 65 million with E out of which he/she received KRW 65 million with his/her wife’s account, from E, the owner of 201 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), who is the owner of Kimhae-si Building 201 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), as if he/she was requested only to mediate the conclusion of the lease agreement of KRW 10 million and monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000 to E, and the remainder was personally consumed.

(B) 500,000 won per month shall also be deposited into E’s account.

B around November 2016, upon the Plaintiff’s request for the termination of the lease contract, the Plaintiff returned the above KRW 10 million to E to the effect that “the lessee wishes to terminate the lease contract” and then used it individually.

C. B was indicted of the above fraud crime, etc. and was sentenced to one year in the first instance of January 12, 2018 (this Court Decision 2017No3307).

The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid contract that compensates for the damage when the damage to property was inflicted on the parties to the transaction intentionally or by negligence in the course of real

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to 65 million won of the deposit acquired by the plaintiff jointly with B, unless there are special circumstances, as a mutual-aid business operator who has acquired B's liability for damages.

B. The Defendant asserts that (i) the damages suffered by the Plaintiff constituted “damage not compensated” under Article 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Credit and Article 33 subparag. 4 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.

According to Eul evidence No. 1, Article 7 subparagraph 5 of the defendant's mutual aid agreement is defined as prohibited acts by practicing licensed real estate agents under Article 33 of the Act.

arrow