beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. On February 2014, Plaintiff: (a) leased “Seoul Gangseo-gu D building, 401” to the Defendant with a lease deposit of KRW 90,000,000; and (b) received only KRW 72,00,000 from the Defendant as a lease deposit; and (c) neglected to accept the entire amount of KRW 90,000,000 from the Defendant.
The Defendant is obligated to pay the difference in the lease deposit that was not paid to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 90 million - KRW 72 million) and damages for delay.
B. On February 14, 2014, the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement with the Plaintiff as a broker of Licensed Real Estate Agent E.
Of the lease deposit of KRW 90 million, the down payment of KRW 9 million was paid until February 13, 2014. The remainder of KRW 81 million was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account on March 14, 2014. On March 25, 2014, the remainder of KRW 18 million was delivered as a check in the presence of a licensed real estate agent and the receipt was received.
Since the lease deposit is fully paid KRW 90 million, it is impossible to respond to the plaintiff's request.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence evidence No. 4, in the case of appointment of the adult guardian No. 2015-2, the Seoul Family Court rendered a judgment to change the Plaintiff’s adult guardian F from F to B, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 22, 2015.
In the above adjudication, the phrase “act of litigation and act of appointing an attorney-at-law for this purpose” among the scope of the power of an adult guardian B to decide on the Plaintiff’s personal affairs can be acknowledged as having stated the fact that the restriction of power of attorney
The court of the first instance rejected the instant lawsuit on March 28, 2017, on the ground that there was no proof of the fact that B obtained the court’s permission despite the restriction of the above power of representation, and therefore, there was a defect in the legal representation right.
Meanwhile, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 8, the plaintiff is the Seoul Family Court after the judgment of the first instance court of this case.