logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고법 1971. 3. 12. 선고 68나1615 제5민사부판결 : 상고
[손해배상청구사건][고집1971민,71]
Main Issues

A case recognizing comparative negligence as to losses incurred by a purchaser to purchase real estate from an unentitled person;

Summary of Judgment

In concluding a contract with the Nonparty’s agent in trust, the purchaser is at fault inasmuch as the purchaser purchased a considerable amount of real estate at a far more intermittent value than the market price, and entered into a contract with the Nonparty with the same owner with the belief that the Nonparty is the Nonparty’s agent, as long as it did not confirm only one degree of the number of owners residing near the market price.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 763 and 396 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff and appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant, Appellant

Yangju- Group

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul Central District Court (67Ga13034) in the first instance trial

Text

The part against the plaintiff concerning the money to be paid under the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 730,00 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from October 5, 1965 to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be divided into three parts of the first and second instances, one of which shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,150,000 won with 5% interest per annum from October 5, 1965 to the full payment day.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution

Reasons

The plaintiff, 2, 3, 4-1, 5-2, 8-2, 15-2, 17-2, and 10-2, and 9-2, 6-2, and 10-3, 6-1, 6-2, and 9-3, 6-1, 6-2, 6-2, and 9-1, 6-1, 6-2, 18-2, 18-2, 6-2, and 9-1, 6-2, and 9-1, 6-2, 6-2, and 9-1, 6-1, 6-2, and 5-2, 6-1, 6-2, and 5-2, each of the above-mentioned, 10-3, 6-1, 6-2, and 9-1, 6-1, each of the above-mentioned, 5-3, and 6-1, respectively.

The defendant was dismissed from office on August 23, 1965 by the defendant, and the certificate of the seal imprint of this case was prepared on August 26, 198 after his retirement, and it is not a crime against the execution of his duties. However, in light of the fact that the date of conclusion of a sales contract is August 2, 1965, or in light of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 9, it is evident that the date of forgery is at least the date of the above August 2, 1965, when the non-party 3 is in office as an employee of the Gu Council, and it is obvious that the non-party 3 is taking charge of the matters concerning the seal imprint, etc., and it is hard to reverse the above part of the statement in the police and prosecutor's office (Evidence No. 5, 6, 12 evidence, etc.).

Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for losses suffered by the plaintiff as a joint tortfeasor due to the above unlawful act by his employees, barring any special circumstance, it is believed that the plaintiff is genuine with the documents established by the certificate of the personal seal impression issued by the non-party 3, and that the plaintiff entered into the sales contract of this case and paid as 1,100,000 won as the price. In full view of the records of the above evidence No. 2, the testimony of the non-party 4, and the whole purport of the oral argument, the plaintiff believed that the non-party 6 was the representative of the non-party 1, and the relationship between the non-party 6 and the non-party 1 was judged in terms of the contract's type and quantity, and that the non-party 1 who is the party to the contract who is residing near at the market price without considering the above rate of damages calculated by adding the amount of damages to 300,500 won to the plaintiff and the non-party 50,000 won.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified to the extent that the above claim is accepted. Therefore, the part of the original judgment that rejected all of the claims shall be revoked, the remainder of the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and the burden of litigation costs shall be governed by Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the provisional execution shall not be put up for a declaration.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Park Jong-dong (Presiding Judge)

arrow