beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 16,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from July 14, 2017 to December 21, 2017.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 17, 2016, the Plaintiff sold real estate to C, and Defendant B is a licensed real estate agent, and on December 15, 2015, the Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Seoul Guarantee Insurance”) concluded a guarantee insurance contract with Defendant B (10 million won, insurance period from December 29, 2015 to December 28, 2016) under Article 30 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act.
B. On July 17, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the content of selling each real estate listed in the separate sheet to C as a broker of Defendant B, with KRW 790,000,000. The land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 was owned by the Plaintiff, not by the Plaintiff, but by the Plaintiff and D, with KRW 1664 and KRW 260,000.
The Plaintiff received KRW 100 million as the down payment on the date of concluding the contract, and KRW 300 million as the intermediate payment on August 1, 2016, respectively.
C. After the payment of intermediate payment, C, which became aware of the co-ownership relationship prior to the process of receiving the entire certificate of registered matters on the site listed in attached Table No. 1, was prepared for the Plaintiff through Defendant B to complete the registration of transfer of ownership, and notified the Plaintiff to complete the registration of transfer of ownership, but the Plaintiff failed to resolve the above co-ownership relationship.
C A lawsuit was filed against the Plaintiff as Seoul Southern District Court 2016Gahap100231, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract without knowing the co-ownership relationship of the land stated in attached Table 1, and the Plaintiff asserted that there was no cause for nonperformance of obligation. The above court asserted that there was no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion, and that C and Defendant B did not confirm the copy of the register over the site stated in attached Table 1, in addition to KRW 400 million, due to restitution to the original state, the damages amounting to KRW 100 million.