logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.02.17 2015가단2685
손해배상
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On March 2008, while the Plaintiff operated a mobile phone sales store with the trade name “D”, the Plaintiff, around September 2010, paid KRW 118,00,000 as premium, from September 14, 2010 to October 6, 2014, to the real estate brokerage office (E building 1; hereinafter “instant store”) located near the said mobile phone sales store.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 4-7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was paid excessive premium from the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff by means of infusing the market price of the instant store influence, etc.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70,000,000 exceeding the reasonable market price for the premium due to tort. Even if not, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of money equivalent to the premium without any legal cause, as it gains profit equivalent to the premium and incurred loss to the Plaintiff.

B. As long as the Defendant did not deception the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant exchanged the premium by agreement, there is no reason to refund the amount equivalent to the premium to the Plaintiff.

3. According to the result of the instant court’s entrustment of appraisal of the F appraiser’s office (Expert G), according to the witness H’s witness H’s testimony, it seems that the premium agreed upon by the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of concluding a contract to accept the instant store (hereinafter “instant contract to acquire the instant store”) was somewhat more likely than the actual premium price for nearby similar stores than the actual premium price for nearby similar stores.

However, only with the testimony of the plaintiff and the witness I, the defendant had concluded a contract for acquisition of the store of this case by deceiving matters concerning the market price of the premium and the current status of the applicant for the acceptance of the store of this case.

arrow