중개수수료
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by this court, shall be modified as follows.
The defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 26, 2014, the Plaintiff is a real estate intermediary who arranged a lease agreement between the Defendant and D on the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment 108 Dong 802, which is owned by the Defendant.
B. The lease deposit under the above lease agreement is KRW 580,000,000, monthly rent is KRW 500,000, and the remainder payment date is November 27, 2014.
C. The confirmation description of the object of the above lease agreement states that the brokerage remuneration is KRW 630,00,000 calculated by adding the value-added tax to KRW 3,465,00 by 0.5% of the monthly rent to the lease deposit, and both the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D affixed their signatures and seals.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts of recognition, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay KRW 3,465,00 as a brokerage commission (the Defendant did not have an agreement on brokerage commission; however, there is no clear and acceptable counter-proof to deem that there was no agreement on brokerage commission, which is a disposal document, after following the description of the description of the confirmation description of the object of brokerage, the above dispute is rejected). The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff at the rate of interest rate of Article 3 (1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 28, 2014 to March 19, 2015, the day following the completion of the payment of the transaction price of the object of brokerage pursuant to Article 27-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act (the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, until March 19, 2015; and damages for delay from the day following the day of full payment).
In this regard, even though the defendant asked the plaintiff to receive a large amount of deposit and repay the loan, the price of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis can be unilaterally paid to the plaintiff.