logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.12.10 2014나21948
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

Reasons

1. As to this part of the facts of recognition, this court's reasoning is that "the person without a name" in the second sentence 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance was attached to "I" and "the third sentence 3 was attached". In addition, at the time, the defendant prepared a receipt of "the F was paid KRW 190 million to E on January 16, 2013" (which has the indication of the Korean Licensed Real Estate Agent Association in the same word at the upper and lower end) that "the first sentence was signed and sealed in the F's name in the above receipt, and I signed and sealed the F's name in the F's name" in the third sentence 4 of the third sentence "the use of the instant lease contract of this case" was changed to "the use of the confirmation statement of the object of this case and the description of the object of brokerage, and the receipt of the lease deposit" as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. With respect to this part of the judgment on the occurrence of liability for damages, the reasons for this court's explanation are as follows: "I" and the 5th, 3, and 4th, 5th, 5th, 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the broker has erred by signing and sealing his name as a broker on the instant lease agreement and the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage, and by drawing up and sealing a receipt of a deposit for lease." This part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following contents between the 5th, 11 and 12. Thus, this part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In this regard, the defendant directly did not comply with the contract parties and then re-preparation the lease contract of this case with the same contents as the existing lease contract after confirming whether the lessor and the lessee coincide with the real estate registration book and whether to receive a deposit.

arrow