logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2020.09.15 2019나2005701
손해배상
Text

The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the plaintiff's selective appeal against the defendant B in this court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for this part of the lower court’s reasoning are as follows: “Defendant D” of the second 17-18th 2nd 1st 17-18th 2nd 1st 2nd 2nd 2nd 200 judgment is “A co-defendant D (hereinafter “D”)”; “(Supreme Court Decision 2017Du64217 Decided January 31, 2018)” of the fourth 15th 15th 20 (Supreme Court Decision 2017Du64217 Decided January 31, 2018) is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, as a matter of principle, was aware that the existing building management ledger was not available to obtain a building permit as to the instant land, which is a development restriction zone. However, the Plaintiff believed that the construction permit could be exceptionally granted because there was a special circumstance where the previous airline, fire proof center, and neighboring residents, which could have known that the previous building had been destroyed by fire, had been destroyed by a fire.

The plaintiff asked the defendant B to find out whether the building permit can be legally granted for the exceptional reasons as above, under the premise to conclude the construction contract on the land of this case with the defendant B.

Defendant B confirmed that Defendant C’s employees D cannot obtain a building permit for the instant land.

Nevertheless, Defendant B received KRW 35,00,000 as if it were cost of construction since it was delegated by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff that it did not inform the Plaintiff of the truth and could legally obtain building permission in order to receive construction permission.

Furthermore, Defendant B, in collusion with D, obtained the instant permission to engage in the instant act in an unlawful manner in collusion with the public official in charge and modifying the building management ledger of other lot number land, and entered into a contract for construction works with the Plaintiff.

arrow