beta
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.07.13 2015가단221594

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 2014, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to divide the sales agency proceeds into 50% in relation to the sales agency business (hereinafter “sale agency business of this case”) for D loan newly constructed for D loan (hereinafter “the loan of this case”) in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant sales agency business”). The initial expenses are first paid by the Plaintiff, and the distribution of sales agency proceeds, settlement, and sales team are to be in charge of the Plaintiff.

The method of settlement of the sales agency business of this case is first determined by the owner of each unit of sales, and the plaintiff and the defendant concluded a sales contract with more than the amount of sales request and received the money equivalent to the actual sales price from the purchaser as the plaintiff's account, and thereafter, the plaintiff remitted the sales request to the owner, and the plaintiff adjusts the remaining amount after deducting all expenses, such as official brokerage fees, from the difference between the sales request amount and the actual sales price, as the object of settlement of profits, to the defendant.

However, even though the Defendant was in charge of the settlement of the instant sales agency from January 2015, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff KRW 52,000,000,000, which is equivalent to 50% of the earnings accrued from the said business as shown in the attached Form, even though it was in charge of the sales agency settlement.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of 52,000,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 2,00,000 per unit selling household while having the Plaintiff carry out the sales agency business of the instant loan. The number of households in which the Plaintiff participated is 36 households, and the Defendant paid all the money under the said agreement to the Plaintiff.

2. In full view of the judgment of the court below, Gap evidence No. 1, witness E’s partial testimony (except for the part not trusted) and the overall purport of the pleading, the loan of this case to the account in the name of the plaintiff.