(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.07.03 2018가단17184

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.07.03 2018가단17184

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On December 22, 2015, the Plaintiff, as a broker of the Defendant, as a licensed real estate agent, leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 150,00,000 and the lease deposit of KRW 150,000,00, and the lease period of KRW 15,000 from February 15, 2016 to February 14, 2018.

(2) At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease contract, the registration of creation of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of KRW 402,480,000 on the instant apartment under the name of F Co., Ltd. on December 28, 2011 was completed, and thereafter, the auction procedure (this court G) following the application for voluntary auction by the said bank was conducted, but the Plaintiff did not receive dividends.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 4 evidence, Gap 2-1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant, as a licensed real estate agent, has a duty to inform the Plaintiff as the lessee of the accurate real estate status and legal relationship, and, in particular, the risk of not being able to receive the deposit after the termination of the lease contract, or to not act as a broker if the degree of danger is serious. However, the Defendant, without notifying accurate information about the current status and legal relationship of the apartment of this case, made the Plaintiff enter into the lease contract of this case by becoming aware of the Plaintiff, and did not perform the contract of this case. The Plaintiff did not provide the explanation on the confirmation of the object of certified brokerage, and the Plaintiff did not provide the explanation on the confirmation of object of certified brokerage. Thus, the Plaintiff breached his duty as a broker. Accordingly, the Plaintiff should compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff, namely, the amount equivalent to the deposit amount of the lease deposit which was not refunded from the lessor.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by adding the overall purport of pleading to the written evidence Nos. 1 and Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가단40914

-인천지방법원 2019.10.22 2018나7344

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.10.17 2013고정4148

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.10.30 2014가합208206

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.12.09 2020가단77944