(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.20 2017나59002

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 2018.04.20 2017나59002

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff C and the Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association shall be KRW 19,00,000 and this shall be applicable.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation of this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the statement of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

2. The reasons why the court's assertion of the parties is stated in this part are the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

3. Determination

A. The reason why the court should explain this part of the liability for damages and the liability for paying mutual aid money is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

B. (1) Where a real estate transaction party delegates a brokerage of real estate transactions to a broker, the broker is obligated to investigate and confirm the relationship of rights of the object of brokerage in accordance with the purport of delegation, and is liable for compensating for any loss arising therefrom if he/she breaches his/her duty of care. However, the transaction party’s obligation to investigate and confirm the transaction relation that the principal of the transaction party who delegates the brokerage is entirely attributed to the broker and the transaction party is not free of his/her responsibility.

Therefore, in a case where a broker fails to perform his/her duty to investigate and confirm whether a real right is a real right holder while mediating a real estate transaction, thereby determining the scope of compensation for the damage incurred to the brokerage client, if it is recognized that the broker neglected his/her duty to investigate and confirm the transaction relation, and that caused the occurrence and expansion of the damage, it shall be deemed that the broker, who is the victim, has been negligent in doing so, and it shall be reasonable in light of the basic principles of the compensation system, namely, fair burden

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da69654, Nov. 29, 2012). (2) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case was examined and examined.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2012. 11. 29. 선고 2012다69654 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2014.11.14 2014나104207

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.08 2019나37310

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.20 2019나27276

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.11 2019나39965 (1)

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.25 2017나16951