The case holding that a real estate broker cannot be deemed to have failed to fulfill his/her duty to explain the object of brokerage.

The real estate broker is obligated to verify the legal relationship of the goods he/she mediates, the transaction or the restrictions on use under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., and present them to the client, and explain them faithfully and accurately. However, in general, in the case where a land readjustment project is implemented by himself/herself as a reserved land at the time of his/her commission and the previous land is reduced at a certain rate, it is a common example that the previous land is reduced at a certain rate. In light of the above, even though the broker did not specifically confirm the details of the designation of the reserved land in mediating the sale of the above land, it cannot be deemed that the broker failed to perform his/her duty required in mediating the above sale, or there was any negligence on

Article 17 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act

Ethiopic

Park Dol-yang

Suwon District Court of the first instance (89 Gohap15171)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 8,150,000 won with 25% interest per annum from the next day after the delivery of the complaint of this case to the full payment day.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second instances, and a provisional execution declaration.

In purchasing from Nonparty 31 on December 31, 1984, the Plaintiff purchased approximately KRW 507-27,117,00,000, approximately KRW 21,000,00 from Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which is owned by him, for approximately KRW 23,500,00,00, the Defendant mediated it as a broker. At the time of the above sale and purchase contract, the instant land was designated as a land substitution project but was included in the transfer area, but the said land was designated as a land substitution project, but the land substitution area for the said land was determined after the determination of the above land substitution disposition was 121.60,000 square meters ( approximately 36.8,00,000 square meters) and the area of the right was 61.90,000 square meters ( approximately 18.7,000,000 won) and the liquidation amount was 12,14,000,00 won between the parties concerned.

The plaintiff, a real estate broker, is the cause of the claim of this case, and the defendant, even if he had a duty to faithfully investigate and explain all the matters regarding the above site, such as the size of the above site, ownership and rights other than ownership, restrictions on the use of public law, taxes, etc., in light of the fact that the plaintiff's failure to conduct the above disposition of replotting becomes final and conclusive due to the error of land substitution, he purchased the above site at 2,30 square meters, but eventually, he purchased the above site at 16.3 square meters (35 square meters-18.7 square meters) out of the above collected area of the above land, and thus, the defendant did not know that the above land was no more than 50,000 won for the above 16.3 square meters (the above 16.3 square meters-16.3 square meters-16.3 square meters-16.). Thus, the plaintiff's request for sale and purchase of the above land was not confirmed in writing to the plaintiff's order to use the land substitution project.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without merit, and the judgment of the court below is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.

Judges Han-dae (Presiding Judge)