beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2017.01.25 2016가단206187

중개수수료지급청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs the authorized brokerage business under the trade name of “E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Busan Jung-gu, and Defendant B is the representative director of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

B. On October 22, 2015, Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with F on KRW 6,250,000 with respect to the instant land outside Busan Shipping Daegu G (hereinafter “instant land”) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and Defendant C entered into a lease agreement with F on March 29, 2016 with respect to the instant land’s building (hereinafter “instant building”) at KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 15,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. Meanwhile, at the time of entering into the instant sales contract and the instant lease contract, the real estate sales contract, the monthly rent contract, and the specifications confirming each object of brokerage are subject to the Plaintiff’s personal information and the Plaintiff’s signature and seal.

The Plaintiff was paid KRW 56,250,000 as the brokerage commission for the instant sales contract and KRW 14,400,000 as the brokerage commission for the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4 and 5, witness H and I's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff acted as a broker for the contract of this case and the contract of this case, and the defendants are liable to pay the defendant the commission for each contract of this case.

B. The Defendants asserted that they ordered Defendant C’s employees to promote the sale of the instant land, and that they had been aware that they would purchase the said land from H, a general director H, and concluded the instant sales contract and the instant lease contract, and the Plaintiff was only the buyer’s broker and did not have been delegated by the Defendants.

3. Determination.