2015 Ghana 528886 Compensation (as stated)

IsaA

1. AB;

2. MaximumCC;

3. Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.

4. The Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association;

March 11, 2016

April 1, 2016

1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff 30 million won with 15% interest per annum from April 2, 2016 to the day of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. 2/5 of the costs of lawsuit is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants jointly do so to the plaintiff with the amount of KRW 50 million and the following day of the decision of this case.

J. D. 15% interest per annum until the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 21, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with Defendant AB and LCC, a licensed real estate agent, and with the content that the Plaintiff would purchase the apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) at KRW 1 billion, 000,000, 107, 804, 107, and 804, 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

B. According to the description of confirmation of the object of brokerage prepared at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant B and the MaximumCC affixed the name of each licensed real estate agent in the direction column as to the indication of the object.

C. However, the apartment of this case is not in fact an apartment of the North Korean trend, but in fact an apartment of North Korea.

D. Meanwhile, on February 24, 2015, the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. concluded a guarantee insurance contract and a mutual aid contract with the parties to the transaction, providing that the period of insurance shall be from February 25, 2015 to February 24, 2016, while the Defendant Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association entered into a mutual aid agreement with the parties to the transaction, setting the period of mutual aid between Defendant L2CC and the parties to the transaction, from September 22, 2014 to September 21, 2015, with the period of mutual aid from September 22, 2014 to September 21, 2015, where the Defendant EB or LCC caused property damage to the parties to the transaction by intention or negligence while acting as a real estate intermediary.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Evidence A No. 1 to 3, Evidence Kim E-E, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. Determination

A. Legal doctrine regarding the occurrence of liability for damages (1)

Since the legal relations between a real estate broker and a client are the same as those under the Civil Act, among them, there is a duty to perform brokerage services requested with the care of a good manager according to the main text of a brokerage request, and as well as the duty to perform brokerage services fairly and in good faith pursuant to Article 29 of the former Licensed Real Estate Agents' Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 11866, Jun. 4, 2013). Article 25(1) of the same Act provides that the broker who received brokerage request has a duty to verify the state, location and legal relationship of the object of brokerage, transaction or use restriction under the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes and explain to the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da55350, May 11, 1993). Thus, in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiff's testimony, which is an apartment house broker, and the testimony of the present case, is not sufficient to explain to the plaintiff.

Therefore, Defendant 1B and LCC are liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the property damage caused to the Plaintiff. The Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance and the Defendant Association are each insurer and mutual aid business entity, and they are jointly liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damage.

B. Scope of liability for damages

In full view of the following circumstances, namely, that is, the direction of apartment is closely related to the residential environment, and the apartment price of apartment due to the difference in the direction within the same apartment complex differs from around 36% before and after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, following the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the apartment price of the instant apartment was approximately KRW 950 million, and the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment at KRW 1 billion exceeding KRW 500,000,000,000, which is an adequate market price of the instant apartment complex, and the Plaintiff ultimately suffered damages equivalent to KRW 50,000,000,000, which is the difference between the adequate market price and the sales price paid by the Plaintiff.

C. Limitation on liability

However, prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff was residing in 103 Dong 601, an apartment within the same complex as the instant apartment, and visited the instant apartment and confirmed its structure, so it could have known the fact that the instant apartment is not toward the south. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not directly confirm the direction of the apartment, but believed that it was erroneous for the Plaintiff to conclude the instant sales contract as it was, and the Plaintiff’s mistake also caused the occurrence and expansion of the damages suffered by the Plaintiff. Therefore, in light of the above facts, it is reasonable to limit the Defendants’ liability to 60%.

D. Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally filed a damages claim amounting to KRW 30 million ( KRW 50 million KRW x0 million KRW 6) with the Plaintiff, as sought by the Plaintiff, on April 2016, which is the day following the date of rendering the instant judgment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. It shall be liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the date of full payment to the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-tae