(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.20 2017나2129

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.20 2017나2129

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed or the plaintiff addss the judgment on the major arguments in the grounds of appeal, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Accordingly, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

this subsection shall be filled by the following:

D. The Plaintiff imposed and paid the enforcement fine of KRW 5,642,00, KRW 5,769,400 in 2015, KRW 5,350, KRW 800 in 2016, KRW 5,369,00 in 2017, KRW 931,00 in 200 in 2016, KRW 742,350 in 2017, and KRW 931,00 in 2016, and KRW 742,350 in 2017, respectively, for the extension of the third floor without permission.”

Judgment of the first instance court

2.(a)

3) The end part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as set forth below 4), as follows, is added to the Plaintiff’s assertion (as to the extension of the Plaintiff’s claim in the trial).

In addition to the Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant C, as a licensed real estate agent, was obligated to notify and explain the Plaintiff that the change in the third floor of the instant building and the rooftop tower was illegal, and that the possibility of imposing enforcement fines is illegal. In addition, Defendant C, as a real estate agent, was obligated to notify and explain the Plaintiff of the fact that the change in the third floor of the instant building and the rooftop tower is illegal.

In particular, there is a duty to explain specifically the charge for compelling execution that will be imposed on the charge for compelling execution for a long time from when to when it is imposed, whether it is imposed over several times a year.

Nevertheless, the Defendants did not properly notify or explain this.

Therefore, damages suffered by the plaintiff should be compensated.

Property, including real estate transactions.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.08 2015가단5325075

-대전고등법원 2019.11.14 2019누11741

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.17 2019나40774

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.06 2018나76738

-제주지방법원 2017.05.17 2016나5917