logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.05.29 2017가단17659
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a sales contract with the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, to purchase KRW 740,00,00,00 each of the sales rights of KRW 303 and 304 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

At the time, the commercial building of this case was difficult to lease because it was adjacent to the singing practice room, but the defendant did not notify the plaintiff, thereby allowing the plaintiff to enter into the sales contract of this case.

The instant commercial building is leased at night on September 2, 2017, and the Plaintiff suffered damages equivalent to KRW 36,143,168 in total for six months from February 25, 2017, after completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant commercial building in the name of the Plaintiff, from February 25, 2017 to September 2, 2017.

As above, since the defendant, as a licensed real estate agent, caused property damage to the plaintiff by intention or negligence in acting as a broker, the defendant is obligated to pay 36,143,168 won and delay damages to the plaintiff as damages pursuant to Article 30 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.

2. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone, which exceeds the scope permitted by social norms while mediating the instant sales contract, deceiving the Plaintiff as if the instant sales contract was concluded immediately after the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

In addition, the Defendant agreed to legally take responsibility for the lease of the commercial building of this case beyond the title to help the Plaintiff rent the commercial building of this case in the future.

In addition, there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant committed an act of mediating the lease agreement of the commercial building of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff would make a lease to the Defendant while paying the balance of the purchase price for the instant commercial buildings on February 20, 2017.

arrow