logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.09.12 2017가단513908
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant F and Defendant-limited company G are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs each of KRW 35,00,000,000, and their related thereto from January 5, 2017.

Reasons

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Judgment on deemed confessions made against Defendant F and the Defendant limited liability company G (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. As to Defendant HCO

A. (i) The Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement as described in Paragraph (2) of the Attached Form No. 2 as the mediation of the following facts: (i) the Plaintiffs were the co-defendants of this case, and on July 28, 2018, that I would pay the Plaintiffs KRW 17,500,000, respectively, as damages for the damage.

(1) The Plaintiff, a real estate agent, was an employee of the Defendant G and arranged the sales contract, lease contract, etc. of the J building leased by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

Defendant G was entrusted with a real estate brokerage contract by K company, the owner of the J building. The F concluded a lease contract with I and the plaintiffs on the leased house of this case in the name of Defendant G without delay, and I had I act as a broker of the instant lease contract with this content.

x I filed a complaint against the plaintiff D with the charge of fraud, but he conspired with F.

A disposition was taken to the effect that it is difficult to view that there was a criminal intention by fraud or fraud, and that there was no suspicion by the compromise of evidence.

(v) the Defendant H Association is a mutual aid entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with I.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 10, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 8-1 to 5, Gap evidence 1-1-2, 4, Gap evidence 13-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-2, 2-3, and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) According to the above facts, I should have explained the legal relationship to the Plaintiffs, a lessee, in concluding the instant lease agreement as a real estate intermediary, by sufficiently examining whether Defendant G, a lessor, acquires ownership.

arrow