용역비
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 1,100,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the amount from July 2, 2013 to September 3, 2014.
1. On March 13, 2013, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff a brokerage commission of KRW 11,223,000 (= KRW 1.247 million x 0.9% value added tax x value added tax) upon purchasing the building of KRW 1.247 million and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, on the brokerage of the Plaintiff on March 13, 2013, under the agreement to pay the Plaintiff a sales commission of KRW 11,223,00,00, and completed the registration of ownership transfer (transaction on March 13, 2013 as the ground for registration) in his/her name on the instant real estate on May 31, 2013. The Plaintiff did not provide a brokerage commission to the Defendant on June 1, 2013, and the Plaintiff could not provide a certificate of title 1 to the Defendant on June 25, 2013; or the Plaintiff’s evidence of content 21 to the Defendant.
According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 12,345,300 won (=1,223,000 won x 110%) and damages for delay pursuant to the above agreement.
2. Determination as to the defendant's counterclaim and the cause of counterclaim
A. The defendant's assertion that the real estate of this case was properly repaired even in a high tension, and after examining only the 10th and the 2nd floor, the defendant purchased the real estate of this case without examining the underground floor, and there is no defect since it was properly repaired.
Unlike the end of the plaintiff, the plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, did not give any explanation about the water leakage phenomenon of the first floor inside the copier, the water leakage number of 101 underground, and the water leakage number of 102 underground, as well as the water leakage number of the wall surface of the second floor, and the water surface entrance at the parking lot of the real estate of this case, despite the fact that the telegraph owner installed at the same time causing considerable hindrance to the use of the real estate of this case, which is caused by the violation