logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.02.17 2015가단40611
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, and 3-2, and the purport of all arguments:

On October 2013, the Plaintiff received advice from the Defendant operating the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in order to purchase No. 303 of the 3rd floor of Gwangju Northern District Court (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building at the above auction procedure, and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant building on the same day.

C. Meanwhile, on August 8, 2008, the building of this case was registered on December 31, 2002, the lease contract date, January 11, 2003, the resident registration date, January 10, 2003, January 10, 2003, the fixed date of possession, January 11, 2003, and F’s house lease right of lessee F.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion explained to the Plaintiff around October 2013, that “The right to lease of the building of this case is cancelled by the above auction procedure, so the deposit shall not be paid with the interest rate.” The Plaintiff believed the above explanation by the Defendant and purchased the above building at the above auction procedure, but in fact, the Plaintiff paid KRW 21,00,000 to F because the above right to lease was not cancelled. The Defendant asserts that he is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 21,00,000.

B. The defendant asserts that the defendant faithfully explained the relation of rights to the building of this case to the plaintiff.

C. First of all, whether the Defendant explained to the Plaintiff that the above registration of the right to lease was cancelled through the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff stated that “If the Defendant analyzed his right to lease relations, etc. accurately, he would have not been awarded the contract of the instant building. Under the ceiling, what is the Defendant would have been awarded the contract and received the bid.”

arrow