(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.01.16 2014가단30622

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) 서울서부지방법원 2015.01.16 2014가단30622

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 7, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) to purchase Category 116 of the first floor of C commercial building as the Defendant’s brokerage, and paid KRW 88,00,000 to the Defendant as the sales cost.

B. On July 16, 2004, the Plaintiff agreed on each of the above sales contracts with the non-party company, and entered into a sales contract with the non-party company to purchase one-half of each of the fiveth fiveth fiveth fiveth fiveth fiveth fiveth fiveth fiveth fiveths of commercial buildings, and additionally paid 32,00,000 won to the Defendant as the sales cost.

C. On January 4, 2010, the non-party company was notified by the Korea Railroad Corporation of the revocation of the C Construction Project Convention, and thereafter, the non-party company was unable to proceed with the construction of C commercial buildings, etc., and was declared bankrupt by the Seoul Central District Court on October 26, 201.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. (1) The primary cause of the plaintiff's claim is ① the plaintiff, around the other hand, by deceiving the plaintiff to deliver money from the plaintiff to the sub-committee at the time of delivery of money in the name of sale work cost, and the plaintiff paid it to the defendant as part of the actual sale price. However, the defendant actually acquired money as a brokerage commission without delivering it to the non-party company. This is a real estate agent who is not allowed to receive money in excess of legal fees or actual expenses, and it constitutes a tort under the relevant law, which violates the provisions of the law, such as false words and acts concerning important matters in the transaction of the object of brokerage, and is not allowed to make a decision by the client by other means. ② At the same time, the plaintiff as a licensed real estate agent violates the duty of due care as a good manager.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2015.12.24 2015나667

-전주지방법원 2018.02.02 2016가합4586

-서울서부지방법원 2015.12.24 2015나31210

-서울서부지방법원 2015.02.06 2013가단21324

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.26 2017가합517931