(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.25 2019나22912

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.25 2019나22912

공제금 등 청구의 소

Text

1. Of the part against Plaintiff A in the judgment of the court of first instance, the payment order is ordered in excess of the amount ordered below.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

A. Review of all the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the trial court, the findings of fact in the first instance court and the determination on the occurrence of liability for damages are recognized as legitimate.

B. Therefore, the reasons for the entry in this case are as follows: (a) the Defendant added the following “2. Additional Determination” as to the assertion that the Defendant added at the trial; and (b) the scope and limitation of liability for damages from 8th to 10th 5th 5 of the judgment of the first instance.

Except as mentioned below, the part of the theory of lawsuit is used as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.

[Supplementary Use]

B. 1) Where a real estate transaction party delegates a brokerage of real estate transactions to a broker, the broker is obligated to investigate and confirm the relationship of rights of the object of brokerage in accordance with the purport of delegation, and if he/she breaches his/her duty of care, he/she is liable to compensate for the damage incurred therefrom. However, the transaction party’s obligation to investigate and confirm the transaction relation which the principal of the transaction party who delegates the brokerage is entirely attributed to the broker and does not deviate from his/her responsibility. Thus, in mediating real estate transactions, in determining the scope of compensation for the damage incurred to the broker by failing to perform his/her duty of investigation and confirmation as to the transaction relation, if it is recognized that the broker has neglected his/her duty to investigate and confirm the transaction relation, and if it causes the occurrence and expansion of the damage, it shall be deemed that the client, who is the victim, was negligent, and it shall be deemed reasonable in light of the basic principle of the damage compensation system (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da69654, Nov. 29, 2012).

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2012. 11. 29. 선고 2012다69654 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.20 2019나27276

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.08 2019나37310

-대전지방법원 2014.11.14 2014나104207

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.14 2019나53299