logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.06.26 2017가단17480
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 5, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”) with Samdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si as part of 36,843 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) with a sales price of KRW 1.3 billion. The Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, had the Defendant’s assistant intervenor (hereinafter “the Intervenor”).

B. The Intervenor entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant with the content that the amount of deduction is KRW 100 million, and the period of deduction is from January 13, 2015 to January 12, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 2, and the purport before oral argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land for the construction of a new factory, and the said land had a legal surface area of 1188.78 square meters (359.61 square meters) and the said legal surface area was unusable, but the seller did not confirm it with the seller, and the seller did not explain it to the seller, and the Plaintiff did not know such fact at the time of the instant sale.

The Intervenor’s negligence caused damage equivalent to KRW 233,746,50,000 calculated as KRW 650,00 per square meter of the above legal site, and the Defendant who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Intervenor, thereby claiming KRW 100,000,000, which is part of the damages to be compensated.

B. (1) Determination (1) There is no dispute between the parties that there is a legal plane equivalent to the area of 1188m28m2 (359.61m2) as the Plaintiff’s assertion on the instant land.

However, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the respective statements and arguments stated in No. 1-3, No. 3-7, No. 4 and No. 5, and the purport of No. 1-3, No. 3-7, and No. 4 and No. 5, i.e., the Plaintiff confirmed the current status by visiting the instant land before the instant purchase and sale. As such, even though the purchase price of the instant land reaches KRW 1.3 billion, the location, status, etc.

arrow