logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.07.20 2016가단32236
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C is a licensed real estate agent who runs the business office with the trade name of “D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”.

B. On November 15, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building Nos. 201 through 406 (hereinafter “instant building”) from Defendant B as a broker of Defendant C by designating the sales price of KRW 1 billion (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 29, 2016.

C. The confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage delivered by Defendant C to the Plaintiff is indicated in the column of “building construction in violation of the building ledger.” Of “the wall face and the exhaustion”, the phrase “influence” is indicated in the “heat column of the wall surface”, “the wall face number”, and “influence” as “free.”

The term "request for data on the state of the subject matter" is written as "to make a simultaneous visit and provide confirmation and explanation in the presence of the subject matter."

After receiving the instant building from Defendant B, the Plaintiff discovered myi and water leakage, etc. in the instant building, and performed fung, waterproofing, and exhausting construction in the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6, 13 (including branch numbers in case of additional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion could not verify the current status of the instant building upon the Defendants’ refusal from the conclusion of the instant sales contract until the payment of the remainder on January 25, 2016. After entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff had F find Defendant C and confirmed the instant building; but Defendant C’s mother, her mother, her mother, did not perform f’s bridge, and Defendant C did not perform any confirmation on the instant building.

After the remainder payment, the Plaintiff was able to verify the current status of the instant building. However, according to the confirmation statement issued by Defendant C, the Plaintiff was presented.

arrow