logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.27 2014나18888
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for judgment of this court shall be the same as the judgment of the first instance; and

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, the term “4.3 million won”, which is the second bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, is read as “4.3 million won”.

In addition, the third and second parts of the first instance court's decision shall be made from the third to the second half as follows:

2.(a)

First, we examine whether the act of preparing the written statement of the implementation of this case constitutes a brokerage act subject to the defendant's mutual aid insurance.

(1) Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”) provides that “The brokerage means the mediation of sale and purchase, exchange, lease and other rights between parties to a transaction regarding the object of brokerage as prescribed in Article 3.” Article 30(1) of the same Act provides that “When a broker causes property damage to a party to a transaction by intention or negligence, he/she shall be liable to compensate for such damage.”

Here, whether a broker's act constitutes brokerage should be determined based on whether the broker's act is objectively deemed to be an act for mediating and mediating a transaction in social norms.

② In the case of this case, it appears that the statement of execution in this case was prepared at the time of entering into the exchange contract in this case, but in light of the following circumstances, the preparation of the statement of execution in this case does not constitute brokerage.

The execution rejection of this case is to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 430,00,000 directly by E, who has brokered the exchange contract of this case using the name of licensed real estate agent B, and thus, it does not fall under the act of mediation in essence, since the broker is an agreement to directly become a party to a legal relationship and is

In a letter of performance, EF and three others.

arrow