(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.03 2016가단67531

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.03 2016가단67531

불법건축물미공지중개로인한손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Nonparty C and D (hereinafter “seller”) on the part of the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, to purchase the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E land and the 4th floor multi-family house (hereinafter “instant building”) for KRW 900 million in the purchase price.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

In the general building ledger on the building of this case, the changes are written as follows: “The date of change: October 22, 2007; and “the details and cause of change: the details and cause of change: The illegally constructed building tag (16m2: hereinafter “the rooftop of this case”).”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Defendant did not perform the duty of disclosure as a broker by deceiving or not notifying the Plaintiff of the fact by concealing that the instant rooftop was illegally constructed.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract without knowing that the instant rooftop was illegally constructed.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay as damages damages damages the Plaintiff suffered, namely, the expenses for removal of the rooftop room and waterproof work, KRW 5,000,000, KRW 42,000,00 in the expected profit loss of the rooftop room ( KRW 350,00 in the monthly rent x 10 years), approximately 24,60,000 in the share price of the rooftop tower ( KRW 480,000 in the building standard market x KRW 16 square meters in the total building area / 311.45 square meters in the building area), and damages for delay.

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 2 of the judgment, it is recognized that the phrase “no corresponding matter” is written in the “act” and “violation column” of the description of confirmation of the object of brokerage prepared at the time of the instant sales contract, in “the column of whether the object of brokerage is in violation of the building ledger” and “no corresponding matter.”

However, Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1 are written and arguments.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.25 2017나81993

-서울행정법원 2020.07.10 2019구합7454

-서울남부지방법원 2021.02.04 2019가단209943

-서울남부지방법원 2015.04.30 2014나11302

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.16 2015가단5361606