(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2019.01.15 2018가단52193

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) 수원지방법원여주지원 2019.01.15 2018가단52193

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On April 17, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased a total of KRW 257 square meters and approximately 66 square meters of housing of a wooden structure structure (hereinafter “instant housing”) from C and D as a broker of the Defendant, a real estate broker, in the amount of KRW 55 million.

(hereinafter “instant purchase and sale”). At the time of the said sale, registration of preservation of ownership was not made with respect to the instant housing, and some of the said housing and its affiliated facilities violated H land owned by G (hereinafter “instant neighboring land”).

G sold the above land to I on October 8, 2015, and I demanded the Plaintiff to remove the part of the instant housing and its accessory facilities, which affected the instant neighboring land and deliver the site.

At the request of I, the Plaintiff removed the attached facilities of the instant house, which were located on the adjoining land of this case, and delivered that part to I.

(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entry of evidence No. 2, purport of the whole pleadings.

At the time of the instant purchase and sale, the Defendant, the Plaintiff, the real estate agent of the Plaintiff, explained to the Plaintiff, “The former seller of the instant house, from long time J, paid the user fee and recognized superficies on the part of the instant neighboring land, and the said house had a house register on the said house.” However, in fact, there was no superficies for ownership of the said house, and there was no house register on the said house.

As such, the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff, and did not properly explain the circumstances on the subject matter of sale as a licensed real estate agent, and thus, the Plaintiff should compensate the Plaintiff for the purchase price of the instant house, KRW 5 million, and KRW 60 million for the expenses for renovation and repair of the said house.

At the time of the sale of this case, the Defendant did not have a house ledger as an unauthorized building, and invaded another’s land on the site.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.10.10 2018가단2041

-울산지방법원 2015.07.16 2015구합176

-울산지방법원 2015.07.16 2015구합183

-대구지방법원경주지원 2015.08.25 2014가단4784

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.12.19 2018가단101058