logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.07.27 2017가단15589
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant C’s KRW 23,950,00,00 per annum for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 5, 2015 to July 27, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C is a licensed real estate agent who runs real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “D real estate.”

B. E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) is an executor of the new construction of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju and four lots of ground Gtel (hereinafter “E”).

C. On March 2012, E entered into the instant trust agreement with H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “trust company”) and the sales management trust agreement (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”) while running the Gtel sales business.

The main contents are that "If the registration of ownership preservation after the construction of G Officetel has been completed, the trust company manages the ownership, only the trust company has the right to sell the officetel, and the sale price shall be deposited in the management account opened by the trust company, and the sale contract without the seal of the trust company shall not become effective."

On December 4, 2015, Defendant C introduced Gtel J (hereinafter “instant officetel”) to the Plaintiff. On the same day, Defendant C drafted a sales contract with E to purchase the instant officetel in the amount of KRW 68,544,000 between E and E.

E. Around December 4, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 47,500,000 to the Defendant B’s account at the Defendant’s request, and paid KRW 400,000 as a brokerage commission to Defendant C.

F. Meanwhile, on November 5, 2013, the instant officetel had been registered to preserve ownership in E’s name due to the commission of the registration of provisional seizure, and on May 28, 2015, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in I’s name on the ground of the trust.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. Defendant B did not legally purchase the instant officetel, and thus, the intent or ability to allow the Plaintiff to acquire the instant officetel even if it resells the instant officetel to the Plaintiff.

arrow