logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.05.22 2014나36384
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the part related to plaintiffs B, E, F, and R in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount of money ordered to be paid.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' claim for damages

A. 1) The following facts are established in light of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4-6, 15, 19-30, 42, 49, 53, 57, 58, 61, and 62 (including serial numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings in the testimony of witness A of this court. (A) The defendants' illegal acts committed by the defendants are established on August 11, 2005 after establishing X, a real estate planning company, and then purchased land from the owners or was entrusted with the sale of the land from the owners. The facts are that there is no development plan for the YJ and there is no possibility of increase in the land price, but they directly or by their employees to the victims including the plaintiffs, and that there are many factories, such as Samsung, Samsung, Hyundai, etc., in the middle of three to four years, and that there is a large amount of residential and industrial complexes to develop the Chinese industrial complex.

“The land price is increased by KRW 00,000 for a certain period of time without any justifiable reason, or all of the land is sold and purchased and false information is provided as if there is no value, thereby making the Plaintiffs aware of the price of the land as if the price actually increased. The “land subject to payment” in the attached Table Nos. Y-il means that the Plaintiffs purchase the relevant land at a price considerably higher than the market price, thereby obtaining the relevant money as the purchase price.

B) According to such findings, the Defendants’ conviction against the Defendants was instituted for fraud, etc. upon the complaint of other victims who purchased the Y only land, and on June 9, 201, a two-year imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant T and on June 1, 201, a three-year suspended sentence for Defendant V was finally affirmed. According to such findings, the Defendants jointly committed against the Plaintiffs.

arrow