(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.02.16 2015나105696

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) 대전지방법원 2016.02.16 2015나105696

손해배상(기)

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Defendant D, in collaboration with the Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association, respectively.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the court of first instance (i.e., 8th to 10th, 14th, 8th, 19 to 10th, 14th, 8th, 8th, 100 to 14th, and (ii) the 10th, 15th, 10 to d. “.”

【Supplementary Use】

B. In light of the limitation of liability for damages, where a real estate transaction party delegates a brokerage of real estate transactions to a broker, the broker is obligated to investigate and confirm the relationship of rights of the object of brokerage in accordance with the purport of delegation and is liable to compensate for damages if the transaction party breached its duty of care. However, the transaction party’s obligation to investigate and confirm the transaction relation which the principal has delegated the brokerage is entirely attributed to the broker, and the transaction party is not free of its responsibility.

Therefore, in a case where a broker has determined the scope of compensation for the damage incurred to the broker by failing to perform his/her duty to investigate and confirm whether the broker is a real right holder in the course of mediating real estate transactions, if it is recognized that the broker neglected his/her duty to investigate and confirm the transaction relationship and that caused the occurrence and expansion of the damage, it shall be deemed that there was negligence on the part of the client who is the victim, and it shall be deemed reasonable in light of the basic principle of the damage compensation system

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da69654 Decided November 19, 2012). In this case, the fact that the instant building is a multi-family house was known to the Plaintiffs, and such multi-family house is difficult to be publicly announced by registration even if multiple lessees exist in one object.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2012. 11. 29. 선고 2012다69654 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.09.20 2017나100169

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.16 2018나31056

-대구지방법원 2020.08.18 2020나309515

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.25 2019나22912

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.18 2016나5459