logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.02.14 2018나23261
손해배상(기) 등
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 19, 2014, the Plaintiff operating L Co., Ltd. entered into a sales contract with the Defendant’s broker, a licensed real estate agent, to purchase the purchase price of KRW 590 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to G and H, the Plaintiff, as a broker of G and H, for the purpose of constructing the building of the rest center for employees, at KRW 356 million, and the down payment of KRW 36 million, on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 36 million, to pay KRW 320 million on August 19, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid KRW 36 million on the date of the contract.

At the time, the said seller agreed to provide the Plaintiff with the documents necessary for the building permit after concluding the instant sales contract.

B. The Plaintiff’s land category is transferred prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and part of the instant land is designated as a clearance zone, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if the road management authority deems it necessary to prevent damage to the road structure, damage to the scenic view, or danger to traffic, and if necessary, to prevent damage to the traffic, the road management authority may designate a clearance zone within the scope not exceeding 20 meters (50 meters in the case of a national expressway) from the boundary line of the road under its jurisdiction.

(3) No person shall engage in any of the following activities in a clearance zone:

Provided, That the same shall not apply to activities specified by Presidential Decree, conducted to the extent that such activities do not cause any damage to road structure or aesthetic view, or any danger to traffic.

2. On June 16, 2014, after a clearance zone was designated by the act of new construction, remodeling, or extension of a building or any other structure, he/she asked K, who is the husband or employee of the defendant, to find it possible to construct the building without asking the architect or the competent authority about whether it was possible to construct the building.

arrow