중개수수료
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. On September 21, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the head of Pyeongtaek-si D (hereinafter “instant factory”) with respect to the land for factory and the building on land owned by the Defendant on September 21, 2015 (hereinafter “instant factory”), with a deposit of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 6 million, and two years from October 30, 2015 to October 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff, a real estate broker, arranged the instant lease contract at the Defendant’s request, and Article 8 of the lease contract contract was prepared at the time of the said contract, “the practicing licensed real estate agent is not liable for nonperformance of this contract,” the two parties to this contract are paid at the same time, and both parties to the contract are not liable for cancellation or cancellation of the contract, and the lessor and the broker’s joint broker’s remuneration shall not be paid at the same time as the broker’s increase or cancellation of the contract.”
However, Article 32 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act and Article 20 (4), (5), and (7) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act apply to the brokerage remuneration for the instant lease contract, which is an object other than a house, which is a object of brokerage other than a house. Article 20 (4) 2 of the above Enforcement Rule provides that the brokerage remuneration for the object other than a house, such as the factory, shall be determined by mutual consultation between the client and the practicing licensed real estate agent within the scope of 9/1,00 of the transaction amount.
In light of these relevant laws and regulations and the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff and the defendant raise objection.