beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2017.02.09 2016가단1286

부동산중개수수료 청구

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,240,00 per annum for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 27, 2015 to February 9, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs real estate brokerage business under the trade name called D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in Pyeongtaek-si C.

B. On October 26, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with E to purchase KRW 5,540,000,000 for the purchase of KRW 1,013 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-si F, G 414 square meters, and H 809 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from E (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On December 4, 2015, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant real estate under the Defendant’s name.

C. Article 8 of the sales contract of this case provides that both parties to the contract shall pay brokerage fees at the same time as this contract is concluded, and the item column of the confirmation description of the object of brokerage (hereinafter referred to as "the confirmation description of this case") shall include "5,540,00,000 x 0.9% x 0.9% x 49,60,000 won" and the seal of the plaintiff, defendant, and E shall be affixed at the bottom of the above sales contract and the confirmation statement of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant agreed to pay a brokerage commission of KRW 49,860,000 equivalent to 0.9% of the purchase price, and thus, sought such payment.

B. Although the Defendant, at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, deemed the Plaintiff to have only the brokerage commission corresponding to 200 square meters, he printed out the documents, calculated at the maximum statutory limit without consultation, and obtained the seal from the Defendant, and affixed the seal on behalf of the Defendant. It is unreasonable to claim the fee on the premise that the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff at 0.9% even if he agreed to do so by fing the money that the Defendant could pay to the Plaintiff.

Even if not,

Even if the plaintiff had the defendant at a higher level than the market price, 8.2 million won at a higher level.