beta
의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.11.24 2016가단16972

약정금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 37 million and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 18, 2016 to November 24, 2016; and (b) the Plaintiff’s annual rate is 5%.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, while operating a brokerage office in the name of "E" in the name of "E" in Pakistan-si D shopping mall 107, said that the Plaintiff would change the name of "F, 305 Dong 1201 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"), a public rental apartment, to the Plaintiff on February 2, 2012, and was paid a total of KRW 46 million from the Plaintiff as premium, brokerage commission, expenses for change of name, etc.

However, on December 3, 2014, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Defendant on the change of the name of the instant apartment, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant, and on December 3, 2014, the investigation was conducted by the investigative agency, the Defendant immediately paid KRW 8 million to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 37 million that was paid to G, which had the existing lessee of the instant apartment, by resolving the said KRW 37 million, and the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrawn the complaint with the Defendant

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 37 million, which was agreed to pay on December 3, 2014.

In regard to this, the defendant paid 37 million won out of the money received from the plaintiff to G where the previous tenant was the tenant, and agreed to pay it to the plaintiff who was returned from G. However, the defendant could not bring a lawsuit against G because the plaintiff did not provide the data, and therefore, the defendant did not have a responsibility to pay it.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant agreed to pay the said KRW 37 million to the Plaintiff. However, as to the method of payment, the Defendant merely brought a lawsuit against G, and thus, even if the Defendant or the Plaintiff did not bring a lawsuit against G, it is not exempt from the Defendant’s liability to the Plaintiff.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion: (a) the Defendant served a payment order on June 18, 2016 with the agreed amount of KRW 37 million on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the next day.