logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.17 2014나43488
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim as to that part is dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the parties (1) G is a person who entered into a contract with the Hian Construction Co., Ltd. on December 8, 201 with the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government to purchase KRW 912,00,000,000 for KRW 214 billion (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

On July 7, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with G to lease the instant officetel at KRW 60 million for one year from August 21, 2012, which is the scheduled date of occupancy (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

(2) Defendant B is a broker who mediates the instant lease agreement at the request of the Plaintiff, and Defendant C is a licensed real estate agent.

(3) The Defendant Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with Defendant B and C.

B. Defendant C’s brokerage assistant explains to the Plaintiff the instant officetel’s confirmation and explanation of the right relationship, and the registration of ownership preservation has not yet been completed. At the same time, Defendant C’s registration of ownership transfer was completed in G in the future with the maximum debt amount of KRW 150 million and the actual secured debt amount of KRW 17 million.

The plaintiff signed and sealed the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage in which such contents are written.

C. Alteration of rights with respect to the instant officetel (1) G completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant officetel on August 21, 2012, G completed the registration of ownership transfer, and completed the registration of creation of a collateral security of KRW 150,210,000 for the maximum debt amount (hereinafter “instant collateral security”) in the name of Heung-gu Agricultural Cooperatives on the same day.

(2) On the same day, the Plaintiff also moved into the instant officetel by making a move-in report, and received a fixed date in the lease contract.

(3) After that, the auction procedure of the instant officetel was commenced upon the application of the Labor Relations Commission with the interest of the mortgagee of the instant case.

The appraised value of the instant officetel was KRW 220 million, but several times.

arrow