beta
Text
1. Defendant B: 14,500,000 won to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 20, 2014 to June 12, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased from Defendant B the land and the third floor building (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Busan Dong-gu, Busan from Defendant B to the price of KRW 200 million.
B. The building of this case consists of three floors. At the time of the sales contract, there were mycognious phenomena and water leakages due to damp seasons, such as the 2,3rd floor mold and the 11,500,000 won, which were not discovered or could not be known to the Plaintiff at the time of the sales contract (hereinafter “instant water leakages”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff was required to repair costs equivalent to KRW 11,50,000.
[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including branch numbers if there is a serial number)
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. Defendant B, as the seller of the building of this case, did not notify or explain to the Plaintiff, even though he knew of the water leakage, etc. of this case. Defendant C, as the broker of the above sales contract, performed his duty of care to the water leakage, etc., and committed an illegal act without performing such duty despite having to notify the Plaintiff as the buyer.
Accordingly, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the repair cost equivalent to KRW 11,500,000 and damages for delay, including KRW 14,50,000,000, and KRW 14,500,000 due to the failure to lease the instant building.
B. Judgment by public notice of demand against Defendant B (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)
C. It is recognized that there exist leakages, etc. of this case as seen in the above basic facts of the claim against Defendant C.
However, the following facts and circumstances acknowledged that there is no dispute between the parties, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1, that is, the building of this case is a relatively old building built around 190 and 24 years old since it was newly constructed around 190, and the plaintiff and the plaintiff.