(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.19 2020나19783

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.19 2020나19783

공제금 등 청구의 소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of this case citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of the dismissal of the fourth to fifth to tenth of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2) C) In mediating the instant lease agreement, it was erroneous for the Plaintiff to explain the amount of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff differently from the actual ones, on the ground that matters regarding the amount of the lease deposit of another lessee residing in the instant multi-family house, the timing and completion period of the lease agreement, etc. are not properly verified or evidence thereof is not secured.

The defendant asserts that C did not explain the existence of prior lessee at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, but did not explain the detailed contents of the lease agreement due to the lessor's failure to provide the data, so it cannot be deemed that C did not fulfill its duty of explanation as a broker of the lease contract for part of the multi-family house.

However, the phrase “the actual relation of rights or the actual rights of real rights that have not been disclosed” of the description confirming the object of brokerage prepared at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement refers to the existence of prior lessee or the amount of lease deposit.

Moreover, there is no evidence to deem that C requested D, a lessor, to provide data on the current status of lease of the instant multi-family house or the amount of lease deposit.

(B) In light of the above, it can be sufficiently recognized that C did not perform its duty to explain the amount, etc. of senior lessee's deposit in the process of brokering the lease contract of this case.

3. The instant multi-family house at the time of September 18, 2014, which is the date of entering into the instant lease agreement.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.06.01 2017나13208

-대구지방법원서부지원 2020.01.15 2019가단51564

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.15 2019나509

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.16 2015나20635