logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.02.18 2019가단10434
소유권이전등기 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, around April 2017, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the non-party on the charge of fraud and violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act by alleging that the non-party, on September 2017, the plaintiff, upon introduction by the non-party E, acquired 50 million won from the non-party E of the 63174m2 of the 4m2 of the 63174m2 of the 4m2 of the 63174m2 (hereinafter "the land of this case"), which is the non-party C, and filed a complaint against the non-party on the charge of fraud and violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act. On October 2, 2017, the plaintiff requested the non-party to cancel the complaint against the non-party on the non-party on the 10th day of the same month, and the defendant and the non-party purchased the land of this case from the plaintiff to the non-party.

2. The plaintiff is the cause of the claim in this case. Although the market price at the time of the land in this case is 10 million won or more, the non-party knew the plaintiff and sold 50 million won or more by deceiving the plaintiff, and according to the agreement in this case, the plaintiff withdrawn the complaint against the above non-party under the agreement in this case, and the defendant did not perform all obligations under the agreement in this case even though he was issued a non-guilty disposition under the 2018-type No. 15010 of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office with respect to the above non-party, and the defendant did not perform all obligations under the agreement in this case. The defendant's failure to perform such agreement led to not only damages that the plaintiff was paid more than 40 million won and acquisition tax from the violation of the Real Estate Transactions Act, but also damages caused by mental suffering.

3. In full view of the contents of evidence No. 3, evidence No. 1, evidence No. 1, and evidence No. 2, the plaintiff's agreement of this case is concluded.

arrow