분양대행수수료
1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, ..
The following facts are apparent or apparent to this court in the judgment subject to a retrial.
On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the payment of the sales agency fee of KRW 379,989,656 and the delay damages.
On July 3, 2015, the above court rendered a judgment of the first instance that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “the Plaintiff’s claim on the sales agency fee was extinguished by prescription of five years after the lapse of five years from January 1, 2005, the due date for payment.”
B. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance. On May 26, 2016, the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial to dismiss the Plaintiff’s appeal on the following grounds.
① The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sales agency fee of KRW 171,961,148 and the delay damages therefrom in accordance with the sales agency contract of this case. However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the commission after the lapse of the five-year prescription period from January 1, 2005, which had been able to claim the payment under the sales agency contract of this case. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the sales agency fee of this case had already expired by prescription.
② The Plaintiff, in consultation with the Defendant, extended or changed the time to pay the sales agency fee, and the Defendant has renounced the statute of limitations after the expiration of the statute of limitations, but there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge it.
C. The Plaintiff appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2016Da27474 Decided October 13, 2016). Accordingly, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.
Plaintiff’s assertion
A. As to the starting point of the statute of limitations, around 2005, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to pay the sales agency fee in accordance with the agreement between the original Defendant and the Defendant, and according to such agreement, the sales agency contract (Evidence 1-1) was prepared.
On January 2, 2015, the Court of First Instance issued a letter of customs duties.