beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The Plaintiff
A. Defendant B: (a) KRW 23,600,000; and (b) on this basis, the amount of KRW 23,600.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant A was obligated to verify whether the instant real estate could be enlarged or reconstructed under the brokerage contract with the Plaintiff and not provide the Plaintiff with false information at least. However, Defendant A was liable for nonperformance of the brokerage contract or liability for damages under Article 30 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, given that Defendant A caused damages by providing false information to the Plaintiff by violating the said obligation. Defendant B was obligated to clearly verify whether it is possible to extend or rebuild the instant real estate in accordance with the service contract with the Plaintiff and provide the service result.
Nevertheless, Defendant B is liable for nonperformance due to breach of the service contract, since Defendant B caused damages to the Plaintiff by erroneously providing the service result as if it is possible to extend or rebuild real estate.
3) As seen above, the Plaintiff suffered losses from failure to recover the down payment of KRW 59,00,000 as seen earlier due to the Defendants’ occupational negligence, and the Defendants are jointly liable for compensation for the said damages. (B) Determination as to Defendant B’s claim: (a) Defendant B was awarded a contract with the Plaintiff for services on the examination of expansion, etc. (hereinafter “instant service contract”); (b) as a result, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted “on-site situation and expansion review report” (hereinafter “instant review report”); and (b) the instant review report included an opinion to the effect that it is possible to extend or rebuild the instant real estate, but in fact, the instant real estate is contrary to the relevant laws and regulations, thereby constituting the Plaintiff.