logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2014.08.08 2013가단33576
손해배상
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 30, 2007 to August 8, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 1, 2005, the clan C (hereinafter “the clan of this case”) completed the registration of entire co-owners’ share transfer on the 12th of the same month on the ground of the division of co-owned properties jointly owned on September 1, 2005 with respect to the above E forest land divided into 162,639 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”).

나. 원고는 2006. 9. 24. 이 사건 종중의 대리인이라 칭한 망 F과 사이에 이 사건 임야 중 277평(坪)을 매매대금 1억 3,800만 원에 매수하는 매매계약(이하 ‘이 사건 매매계약’이라 한다)을 체결하였고, 피고는 용인시 처인구 G에서 ‘H공인중개사’를 운영하는 부동산중개업자로서 이 사건 매매계약을 중개하였다.

C. The Plaintiff paid the netF KRW 10 million on the day of the instant sales contract, and the intermediate payment KRW 50 million on January 30, 2007, respectively.

On April 17, 2007, the Plaintiff and the NetworkF rescinded the instant sales contract on the grounds that it was impossible to divide the part purchased by the Plaintiff out of the forest of this case, but the networkF did not refund KRW 60 million in total the down payment and intermediate payment paid by the Plaintiff.

E. In around 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the sum of the down payment and intermediate payment to the instant clan as the Sungwon District Court Branch 2012Gadan49093, which is the sum of the down payment and intermediate payment.

However, in the lawsuit above, the clan of this case did not confer the right of attorney to conclude the sales contract of this case to the deceased F, and it asserted that the deceased F signed the sales contract of this case by forging the seal of the above clan, and the above court granted the right of attorney to conclude the sales contract of this case to the deceased F on May 30, 2013.

The judgment was pronounced that the plaintiff's claim was dismissed on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the delegation of authority was made, and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, .

arrow