분양대행수수료 등
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) with KRW 7,449,309 and KRW 309.
1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for a counterclaim against the payment of KRW 187,651,691 of the sales agency fee and KRW 39,505,00 of the sales agency fee and advertising cost. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a counterclaim against the payment of KRW 195,101,00 of the contract deposit due to the refund of the sales agency fee already paid to the Plaintiff and the compensation for nonperformance of the obligation, and only KRW 187,651,691 of the contract deposit were partly accepted among the claims for a counterclaim, and only KRW 195,101,00 of the contract deposit was partially accepted among the claims for a counterclaim, and only the part against which the Plaintiff lost the counterclaim is clearly stated in the record.
Therefore, among the claims in the principal lawsuit, only 187,651,691 won and 195,101,000 won of contract deposit among the counterclaim claims are subject to the judgment of the court, and the decision is made only on this part.
2. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
Under the 8th page of the 5th ruling of the first instance, the “1. Trust” shall be added to the case where the trust’s credit or honor is damaged or the property damage is incurred.”
The title of the first instance judgment is as follows: “from June 2016 to June 2017” under the title of the fifth instance judgment, the title “from June 2017.”
3. Determination on the part of the sales agency fee of KRW 187,651,691 in the claim of the principal lawsuit
A. (1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the instant sales agency contract around September 30, 2017, and even if it is impossible to recognize the termination of the family agreement, the Defendant terminated the instant sales agency contract pursuant to Article 8(2) of the instant sales agency contract around November 28, 2017.
The plaintiff from July 2017.