(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.11.27 2018가단20323

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2019.11.27 2018가단20323

손해배상

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. Upon the introduction of Defendant C, a broker assistant for Defendant B, the Plaintiff became aware of the land E and F of the members of Ansan-si, the Plaintiff owned and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On September 28, 2017, the Plaintiff is a broker of Defendant B and D.

The sales contract for each of the instant lands and the instant buildings indicated in the subsection (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) was concluded, and the payment was made by November 17, 2017, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in his/her name.

C. On May 15, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to G by setting the lease deposit amounting to KRW 40 million, KRW 1.5 million per month, and the lease period from May 15, 2018 to May 14, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion purchased the instant building for commercial use, and leased it to G who wishes to operate a restaurant.

However, while G completed remodeling of the instant building and applied for a business license to the member-gu Office, G did not obtain a business license on the ground that the instant building was in violation of its duty to maintain at least 50cm of the distance from the boundary of neighboring land (hereinafter “the distance violation”) and illegally extended toilets.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff: (a) removed one part of the instant building in violation of the separation distance and installed a new wall; and (b) paid a total of KRW 84,50,000 for repair work; and (c) imposed a charge for compelling the performance of KRW 5,749,890 from the Ansan market.

Defendant B, as a licensed real estate agent, is obligated to examine, confirm and explain the boundary of the building of this case as a brokerage assistant, and even if the seller was notified of the violation of the distance and the illegal extension of toilets, the Plaintiff did not explain it.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.11.27 2019구합547

-서울고등법원 2016.01.15 2015누55211

-인천지방법원 2018.11.02 2018나60208

-서울고등법원 2017.04.20 2016나2049335

-수원지방법원 2014.10.14 2013가합22143