(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.09.14 2016나6347 | 리걸엔진

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) 제주지방법원 2017.09.14 2016나6347

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendants, a licensed real estate agent (the Plaintiff’s broker, Defendant B and D, and Defendant C’s agent, both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s agent) for the purchase of KRW 115 million in price, E, E, 500,000 square meters, and F, 396 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The down payment of KRW 10,500,000,000 on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 13.5 million on October 22, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid down payment on the same day.

B. Upon the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1 million to the Defendants a brokerage commission.

C. Thereafter, at the time of concluding the instant sales contract on October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants did not properly notify D of the fact that the instant land fell under “G area” (hereinafter “G area”) and it was practically difficult to construct the instant land, and notified D of the purport that the instant sales contract would be rescinded.

D, on October 10, 2014, notified the Plaintiff that he would prepare documents necessary for the transfer of the instant land ownership, and would pay any balance within the original time limit, and notified the Plaintiff that the contract would be null and void in the event of nonperformance, and that the contract would also confiscate the down payment as stipulated in the instant sales contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants asserted that they were licensed real estate agents, and were obligated to verify the legal limits on the use of the brokerage object and explain faithfully and accurately to the clients. However, at the time of concluding the instant sales contract, they did not fully explain to the Plaintiff that the instant land constitutes G zone.

If the plaintiff had known such fact in advance, he did not purchase the land of this case, and the above defendants.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.01.12 2016가단232484

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.14 2016가단5191217

-전주지방법원 2018.11.13 2017가단11232

-수원지방법원평택지원 2016.06.23 2015가단45074

-전주지방법원 2017.02.10 2015가단22627