beta
(영문) 청주지방법원제천지원 2019.07.25 2018가합155

부동산매입용역비지급청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is a person who engaged in a licensed real estate agent business under the name of “F” in Incheon City E, and Defendant C is a person who was a head of H-area housing association, a regional housing association established and authorized pursuant to the Housing Act on July 2, 2014, which was established and approved on July 2, 2014, and Defendant B’s fraud and Defendant D are the same children of Defendant B.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. A. Around August 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a contract for real estate purchase services with the purport that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff at the service cost, on behalf of the Defendants, for a third party designated by Defendant C or Defendant C, the Plaintiff provided services to purchase the site of the multi-family housing to be constructed in the G G incheon-si for a total of KRW 6.5 billion from the owners of the relevant land.

After that, the Plaintiff provided the H District Housing Association, the representative of Defendant C or Defendant C, with the content that he/she would purchase a site of approximately 21,000 square meters in aggregate of approximately 3,253 square meters in G prior to G incheon-si, and about 13 square meters in total, from the landowner of the land.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay 300 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The judgment is based on the following: (a) a real estate purchase agreement (Evidence A 1-1) submitted by the Plaintiff to prove his/her assertion cannot be deemed a contract that has been duly and effectively formed since the Plaintiff’s signature and seal is not affixed to the parties concerned; and (b) the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a real estate purchase service agreement with the Defendants on the same content as the Defendants alleged, and there is no

Unless there is a real estate purchase service contract between the plaintiff and the defendants, the plaintiff's assertion on this premise needs to be examined further.

참조조문