(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.03.19 2019가단9831

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) 수원지방법원 2020.03.19 2019가단9831

대여금반환

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 65,90,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from September 18, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a real estate broker who operates the C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office located in the above city.

B. On March 4, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a brokerage contract with the Defendant on March 4, 2019, with the content that the Defendant would broker the sales contract for the household portion for which the sales contract was cancelled among E Apartments located in the Si ofHanam-si, and the same month.

5. The Defendant paid the sales contract amount of KRW 65.9 million.

C. The Defendant, despite the Plaintiff’s continuous demand, failed to continuously perform the brokerage of the sales contract for the cancelled household portion, and when the brokerage of the sales contract was not made, agreed to refund the down payment amount of KRW 65.9 million to the Defendant on April 8, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay 65.9 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff pursuant to the above agreement, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to this, the defendant, without negligence, paid the sales contract amount received by the plaintiff to F, who belongs to F, a sales agent, and acquired it by fraud. The plaintiff's claim in this case constitutes substantial damages claim, and the plaintiff, the client, is also negligent in failing to perform his/her duty of care in the process of concluding the contract. Thus, the defendant's liability should be limited in consideration of such

However, as seen earlier, in this case, even though the Defendant, a real estate broker, received the sales contract at the Plaintiff’s request, but failed to mediate the conclusion of the sales contract for the Plaintiff and the cancelled household portion, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed as deceiving F without negligence, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was accused of F without negligence, and the Defendant is responsible for investigating and verifying the transaction relation with the Plaintiff, the client, as the broker, in relation to

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.03.19 2019가단9831

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.28 2014가단5102473

-서울고등법원 2015.01.15 2013나2030767

-수원지방법원 2017.05.18 2016나60379

-인천지방법원 2016.10.14 2016가단28025