logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.05.12 2016나49174
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and all of Defendant D and E’s appeal are dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff out of the appeal costs.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the matters alleged in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. 1) On the premise that Defendant B and C had completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant building without notifying the Plaintiff of any rescission regarding the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff, as a preliminary agent, concluded the instant sales contract with G on March 10, 2017, and thus, sought payment of KRW 100 million in total, including the down payment of KRW 50 million and the estimated amount of damages as stipulated in Article 6 of the instant sales contract, based on each of the following facts: (a) Defendant B and C concluded the sales contract with G on April 14, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant building; and (b) Defendant B and C concluded the sales contract with G on May 7, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 7, 2015.

However, on December 30, 2014, the day before the date of the above sales contract, the Plaintiff concealed that the building of this case was illegally changed, and gave notice to the said Defendants seeking the cancellation of the sales contract and the return of down payment and brokerage commission, on the grounds that the building of this case was concluded. It is difficult to view that the illegal alteration of the use of the building of this case constitutes a case where the purpose of the sales contract of this case cannot be achieved.

In addition, according to the evidence No. 3, Defendant B’s notice as of December 30, 2014 is to be deemed to have reversed the contract if the Plaintiff did not pay it by January 13, 2015, which is the date of the intermediate payment.

arrow