2012Na4596 Damages

1. △△△;

2. ★★★

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff ○○○

[Defendant-Appellant]

1. Do Governors;

2. Experimental;

3. 한국◇◇◇◇◇◇◇

Do Governor Do Governor on behalf of the representative director ○○

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other

[Defendant-Appellant]

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Kahap60252 Decided April 13, 2012

March 7, 2013

March 28, 2013

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

(a) The Plaintiffs: (1) Defendant 1 △△△△, Defendant 239, 907, and 778 won each of the 239, 907, and 226, 478, and 128 won each of them; (2) 5% per annum from May 12, 2011 to March 28, 2013; and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and (2) Defendant Korea shall pay the amount at each of the 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and (3) Defendant 1 Korea shall pay the amount at each of the 100,000,000 won among the dedicated and each of the above amounts, and 20% interest per annum from the following day to March 28, 2013 to the date of full payment.

B. The remaining appeals by the Defendants and the plaintiffs' remaining incidental appeals are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 30% of the part arising between the Plaintiffs, Defendant △△△△, △△△△△△, and △△△△△ is borne by the Plaintiffs, and 70% by the Defendants, respectively, and the part arising between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant and the Defendant

3. The above paragraph 1(a) may be provisionally executed.

Purport of claim, purport of appeal and incidental appeal

1. Purport of claim

The plaintiffs shall pay to the plaintiffs the amount of KRW 342, 725, 140 jointly and severally, the amount of KRW 100,000,000 out of the above amount, jointly and severally with the defendant ○○○, and the amount of KRW 100,000,000, and each of them shall be paid 5% per annum from the day when the lawsuit in this case is filed to the day when the copy of the complaint is served, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day when the payment is made (the plaintiffs reduced the part of the damages for delay in the claim in the

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The judgment of the first instance shall be amended as follows:

(a) Defendant 1: (a) Defendant 1: (a) Defendant 239, 907, 778, and 20% interest per annum from the filing date of the instant lawsuit to the rendering date of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) Defendant 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment; and (a) Defendant 20% interest per annum from the filing date of the instant lawsuit to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) Defendant 20% interest per annum from the filing date of the instant lawsuit to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) Defendant 20% interest per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

가. 매매계약 체결 ( 1 ) 원고들은 2008. 9. 5. 공인중개사 피고 ●●●, 그의 중개보조원인 피고 ◎◎◎의 중개를 통하여 실제 소유자 □□□의 명의수탁자인 ■■■와 별지 목록 1. 기재 부동산 ( 이하 ' 401호 ' 라 한다 ) 을 매매대금 431, 500, 000원에 매수하되, 계약금 10, 000, 000원은 계약일에, 중도금 10, 000, 000원은 2008. 9. 6. 에, 잔금 411, 500, 000원은 2008. 10 .

22. 각 지급하기로 하고, 특약사항으로 채권최고액 381, 600, 000원, 채무자 ■■■, 근저당권자 중앙농업협동조합으로 하여 설정되어 있던 근저당권을 잔금 지급 시 말소하며 , 채권최고액 90, 000, 000원, 채무자 ■■■, 근저당권자 △△△로 하여 설정되어 있던 근저당권은 2008. 9. 12. 까지 매도인이 말소하고, 보증금 20, 000, 000원, 월 차임 450, 000원에 임대되어 있던 1층 주차방 약 12평은 본 계약물건에 포함되며 잔금 지급시 이를 승계하기로 하였다 .

( 2 ) 원고들은 2008. 9. 6. ( 매매계약서에는 소급하여 2008. 9. 5. 로 작성하였다 ) 피고 ●●●, ◎◎◎의 중개를 통하여 실제 소유자인 □□□의 명의수탁자인 ■■■와 별지 목록 2. 기재 부동산 ( 이하 ' 501호 ' 라 하고, 위 401호와 통틀어 ' 이 사건 각 부동산 ' 이라한다 ) 을 매매대금 233, 000, 000원에 매수하되, 계약금 10, 000, 000원은 계약일에, 중도금 10, 000, 000원은 2008. 9. 8. 에, 잔금 213, 000, 000원은 2008. 11. 10. 각 지급하기로 하고, 특약사항으로 채권최고액 171, 600, 000원, 채무자 ■■■, 근저당권자 중앙농업협동 조합로 하여 설정되어 있던 근저당권은 잔금 지급 시 말소하기로 하였다 ( 이하 통틀어 ' 이 사건 각 매매계약 ' 이라 한다 ) .

나. 소유권이전등기 및 소유권이전청구권가등기 경료 ( 1 ) 원고들은 401호에 관하여 서울동부지방법원 송파등기소 2008. 10. 22. 접수 제XXXXX호로 2008. 9. 5. 매매를 원인으로 각 1 / 2 지분에 관하여 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다 .

(2) On October 22, 2008, with respect to No. 501, the Plaintiffs, as the Receivingxxxx, as of October 22, 2008.

9.5. The provisional registration of ownership transfer claim is completed with respect to each one/2 shares by reason of trade reservation.

C. The area of each of the instant real estate and the imposition (1) 401 of charges for compelling the performance is 53.3m or the area occupied by the head of Songpa-gu, the competent authority, is 55.38m or the area occupied by unauthorized use, and 501m or the area occupied by unauthorized use is 31.36m or the area occupied by unauthorized use is 21.94m or 94m or volume

( 2 ) ○○구청장은 2008. 11. 21. 원고들에게 401호가 위와 같이 건축법 위반 ( 무단 증축 ) 건축물에 해당되므로 그 위반사항을 시정할 것을 계고하는 1차 안내장을 발송하였고, 위 안내장은 그 무렵 원고들에게 송달되었다 . ( 3 ) 송파구는 2008. 11. 21. ■■■에게 501호가 위와 같이 건축법 위반 ( 무단증축 ) 건축물에 해당되므로 그 위반사항을 시정할 것을 재차 독촉하는 2차 안내장을 발송하였다 .

(4) As to subparagraph 401, the fact of violation of the Building Act was registered in the aggregate building ledger on March 23, 2009 and January 12, 2009.

( 5 ) 위와 같은 무단증축으로 401호에 대하여 2009년에는 12, 580, 750원, 2010년에는 12, 349, 740원, 2011년에는 13, 429, 650원의 이행강제금이 부과되었다 ( ■■■ 명의의 501호에 대하여 2009년에는 4, 108, 440원, 2010년에는 3, 914, 090원의 이행강제금이 부과되었다 ) .

라. 원고들의 □□□, ■■■ 에 대한 소송

원고들은 □□□, ■■■를 상대로 ' 이 사건 각 부동산이 불법 건축물로서 매년 20, 000, 000원 가량의 이행강제금이 부과되고 이 때문에 종전 소유명의인은 경찰조사까지 받은 적이 있음에도 이를 고지하지 않고 이 사건 각 부동산을 원고들에게 매도하였다 ' 는 이유로 이 사건 각 매매계약을 취소하고 이에 따른 원상회복과 손해배상을 구하는 소를 제기하여 ( 서울동부지방법원 2009가합929호 ), ' □□□, ■■■는 연대하여 원고들에게 536, 265, 000원을 지급하고, ■■■는 원고들로부터 401호에 관하여 서울동부지방법원 송파등기소 2008. 10. 22. 접수 제74759호로 마친 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 인수하라 ' 는 내용의 판결을 선고받았고 그 무렵 위 판결은 확정되었다. 다만 , 당심 변론종결일에 이르기까지 원고들이 ▲▲▲, □□□으로부터 위 확정판결에 따라

There is no money that has been repaid.

E. On April 9, 2010, with respect to the auction 501 set forth in 501, a decision to voluntarily commence auction was made on April 9, 2010 by the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2010,515, and the auction procedure was in progress, and the auction procedure was sold to the ▽▽▽△△△ on January 27, 201. The Plaintiffs did not have any dividend out of the proceeds

(f) Conclusion of mutual aid agreements;

The defendant Korean Lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Korean Lawsuit") concluded a mutual aid agreement from June 28, 2008 to June 27, 2009, which is a mutual aid project operator to guarantee the broker's liability for damages, including the amount of deduction 50,00,000,000, and the period of deduction from June 28, 2008 to June 27, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 8-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 12, Gap evidence Nos. 13-1, 2, Gap evidence Nos. 17, 18, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 4, fact inquiry results with the head of ○○○○ in the court of first instance, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A real estate broker has a duty to handle brokerage services requested with the care of a good manager in accordance with the principal place of a brokerage request under Article 681 of the Civil Act. Before the brokerage is completed under Article 25 (1) 1 and 2 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Licensed Real Estate Agents Act"), he/she shall confirm the state of the object of brokerage, location and relationship of rights, transaction or use restrictions, etc. under Acts and subordinate statutes, and explain faithfully and accurately to the brokerage client. In performing brokerage services under Article 30 (1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, if any property damage is caused to a transaction party by intention or negligence, he/she shall be liable for such damage.

In the instant case, 401: (a) more than twice the approved area; (b) more than one half of the approved area was extended to one day and seven times the approved area was extended to each other; and (c) according to the result of the Defendant’s examination by the first instance court, the Defendant dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the dedicated to the

개를 위하여 이 사건 각 부동산을 3 ~ 4회 정도 방문하였던 사실, 피고 ◎◎◎은 위 매매계약 당시 이 사건 각 부동산의 등기부등본을 확인하여 실제 면적과 비교하면 많이 확장된 부분이 있음을 알게 되었던 사실, 피고 ◎◎◎은 원고 ☆☆☆에게 이 사건 각 부동산을 소개할 당시 이 사건 각 부동산이 소재한 송파구 ▼▼▼ 일대에는 " 확장된 집들이 조금 있다 " 고 말한 사실, 위 매매계약 체결 이후인 2008. 9. 10. 경 원고 ☆☆☆이 등기부상의 면적이 실제 면적에 비하여 상당히 적다는 점에 관하여 문의하자, 피고 ◎◎◎은 " 확장된 집이 조금 있고, 아직까지 문제가 된 사례를 본 적이 없었다 " 고 답한 사실, 원고 ☆☆☆이 이 사건 각 부동산을 담보로 대출을 받으려고 하였다가 등기 면적이 적어 대출 가능액에 차질이 생겨 잔금 지급일 이전인 2008. 10. 5. 경 재차 문의하자, 피고 ◎◎◎은 관할관청이나 법률전문가에게 문의하여 보거나 관련 서적 등을 통하여 확인함이 없이 단지 인터넷 정보나 주변 중개업소를 통하여 들은 것을 토대로 " 이행강제금을 어느 기간 내면 한시적으로 양성화된 사례가 있다 " 고 답한 사실 등을 인정할 수 있다 .

In addition to the above facts, the following facts revealed in the above facts: (a) the down payment and intermediate payment with respect to each real estate of this case are merely KRW 10 million (total of KRW 20 million) and it is considerably difficult for the plaintiffs to continue to impose a large amount of enforcement fines for each of the real estate of this case to purchase even after the intermediate payment was paid after the intermediate payment was made, and even after the intermediate payment was made, there are considerable concerns for the plaintiffs to pay the balance even if they would face legal disputes with the seller; (b) even though the plaintiffs were aware that there was an unauthorized extension of the real estate of this case, the defendant chip chip is an administrative disadvantage disposition that can be imposed upon the plaintiffs according to the purchase of each of the real estate of this case (e.g., whether to impose the removal order or the enforcement fines, the amount and the imposition period of enforcement fines, etc.) and notify the plaintiffs of this fact for a limited period of time, and thus, it is difficult for the plaintiffs to explain it to the public or legal experts of this case without permission.

Furthermore, the mediation act of the defendant chip chip is deemed to be an act of ○○○○, which is an employee, pursuant to Article 15(2) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act. Thus, the defendant △△△△△, the chip chip is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the negligence of each of the above Defendants, and the defendant Association is liable to pay the mutual aid money to the defendant △△△△, the

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. Damages (1) The amount paid by the Plaintiffs as a result of each of the instant sales contracts

According to the evidence indicated below, according to the conclusion and implementation of each of the instant sales contracts, the Plaintiffs are recognized to have spent KRW 481, 135, 140 as indicated below, and KRW 86, 490, 00 in total, KRW 567, 625, 140 in relation to KRW 401 as listed below, as follows:

(2) As seen earlier than the economic value that the Plaintiffs acquired through each of the instant sales contracts, 501 did not file for registration of ownership transfer with the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs sold at the auction procedure to third parties and did not receive the dividends entirely, so there is no economic benefit that the Plaintiffs received in relation to 501.

앞서 본 바와 같이 401호는 원고들에게 각 1 / 2 지분에 관하여 소유권이전등기가 경료되었는데, 갑 제18호증의 기재 및 제1심 감정인 ▼▽▽의 시가 감정결과에 의하면 401호의 객관적 가치는 적법하게 사용승인 받은 면적을 기준으로 할 때 223, 900, 000원, 위반건축물로서의 현황을 기준으로 할 때 254, 800, 000원으로 나타난다. 그러나 위 반건축물로서의 현황을 기준으로 한 감정은 무단증축부분의 면적을 포함하여 부동산의 가치를 평가한 후 이후 건물의 사용연한까지 부과될 이행강제금을 감정 당시의 현가로 평가하여 이를 공제하는 방식으로 계산된 것인데, 이행강제금이 401호의 사용연한 내내 부과될지 및 부과 액수가 일정할 지는 예측하기 곤란한 점, 일반적으로 다세대주택은 전유면적을 기준으로 거래하는 것이 관행이고 이때의 전유면적은 공부상 허가받은 면적을 일컫는다고 보이는 점을 종합하면 무단증축된 건물의 객관적 가치는 적법하게 사용승인 받은 면적을 기준으로 평가하는 것이 타당하다고 보이므로, 이 사건 401호의 객관적 가치는 223, 900, 000원이다 .

(3) Sub-decisions

Ultimately, the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to each of the instant sales contracts are KRW 343,725,140 ( = 567,625,140 - 223,900,000).

(b) Set-off of negligence;

The Plaintiffs also knew that each of the instant real estate was illegally extended at the time of entering into each of the instant sales contracts, but neglected to verify the degree of such unauthorized extension, and that there was a duty of care to verify the disadvantage of each of the instant real estate, as seen earlier, as seen earlier, and therefore, it is reasonable to view that the rate of negligence is 30%, and therefore, it should be considered in determining the scope of damages.

(c) Set-off of losses;

The Defendants have the registration title as to the Plaintiffs 401, and on October 2008.

22. From October 22, 2008, a security deposit of 501 to October 27, 201 and a monthly rent of 100,000 won was leased, respectively, to the underground parking lot room attached to 401 to 401 from the date of closing argument in the current trial. The security deposit of 501 to October 27, 201, sold at the auction procedure from October 22, 2008, respectively, was leased at KRW 401 to the market price of 401 to the date of closing argument in the current trial.

10. The claim that the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 1.3 million per month from January 22 to January 27, 2011, and KRW 300,000 per month from January 28, 201 to January 28, 201, should be deducted from the amount of compensation for damages, since it belongs to the interests of the plaintiffs.

The scope of benefits to be deducted by offsetting profit and loss is limited to the scope of damage which is the cause of tort liability, as well as to the scope of damage which is the cause of tort liability (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da31361, Dec. 22, 1992, etc.). As to the market price amount of 401, the Health Unit, as seen earlier, calculated the amount of damages by taking advantage of the disadvantage that the plaintiffs sustained as a result of continuing holding 401, as seen earlier, the market price of 401 cannot be deducted by offsetting profit and loss. The amount equivalent to the remaining rent shall not be deducted by offsetting profit and loss, and the amount equivalent to the other rent has been acquired through the lease relationship with the third party separate from each sales contract of this case which was made by the defendant Dopo-gu and Dopo-won. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that there is a proximate causal relation with the above defendants' tort. Accordingly,

D. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant Association

The defendant association asserts that the defendant association is not obliged to pay the mutual aid amount as to the portion exceeding KRW 50,00,000,000, which is the total amount of the subscription period, pursuant to the mutual aid agreement with the defendant ○○○○○○, and thus, the defendant association is not obligated to pay the mutual aid amount.

In this case, the terms and conditions of mutual aid of the defendant Association, which were applied at the time of each contract of this case (Evidence B(5))

Article 2 (1) provides that "The amount to be compensated by the Association shall be limited to the amount of mutual aid coverage." However, the meaning of the above provision is only interpreted as setting "the limit of compensation for each case of a mutual aid accident" caused by a real estate brokerage act, and it cannot be viewed as setting "the total limit of compensation for all mutual aid accidents occurred during the period of mutual aid coverage" (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da3949, Apr. 10, 2008, etc.). In addition, the amended terms and conditions of mutual aid came into force on January 1, 2009.

Even if the amended terms and conditions affect the mutual aid contract concluded in accordance with the previous terms and conditions, it can not be seen that the amended terms and conditions naturally affect the mutual

As seen earlier, the terms and conditions of mutual aid prior to the amendment are applicable since the defendant ○○○○○ entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant Association on June 17, 2008. As such, the limit on the compensation of the defendant Association arising from the mediation of the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was KRW 50,00,000 per accident. As such, the defendant Association is liable for damages of KRW 180,064,598 relating to the mediation of heading 401 [ = 481,135,140 - 401, value No. 401 value KRW 23,90,000] out of the above compensation-limit amount of KRW 50,00,000, KRW 60,543,000 for each of the above compensation-limited amounts of KRW 501, KRW 500,000 for each of the above compensation limit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, as Defendant ○○○○, ○○○○○, 607, 598 (343, 725, X-70 per annum) (239, 907, 778 won (171, 362, 570 won + an amount to be additionally claimed by the Plaintiffs) among the above 226,478,128 won and the above 2206,478,128 won among the above 200, 200, 13,429, and 598 won (the above 200, 201, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 300, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 30, 2011).

Judges Gangnam-gu of the presiding judge

Judges Park Jong-dae

Review of Abuse of Judge

A person shall be appointed.

1) Trading set forth in subparagraph 401, with a view to deducting total option costs of KRW 2,00,000, which were included in the purchase price set forth in subparagraph 501, from the purchase price set forth in subparagraph 401;

After adjusting the price of KRW 429,500,000, the balance was paid.