손해배상(기)
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. On April 22, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for business license acquisition of the “Ecafeteria” located in the Gu, while Ansan-si operated by C and C.
B. In addition, at that time, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract of KRW 60,000,00 for the building owner F and E-cafeterias building at E-cafeterias.
C. Meanwhile, on May 6, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 29,000,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant payment”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff paid the payment of this case to the defendant at the time of conclusion of the E-cafeteria business license acquisition agreement and the E-cafeteria real estate lease agreement. The defendant's act of mediating the business license acquisition agreement and the real estate lease agreement without a licensed real estate agent is null and void as it violates the Real Estate Brokerage Act, which is a mandatory law, and thus, the defendant is obligated to return the payment of this case to the plaintiff 29,000,000 won.
Even if the defendant's act of brokerage is valid, it is obligated to pay 23,060,000 won exceeding the upper limit of 5,940,000 won under the Real Estate Brokerage Act as unjust enrichment return.
B) If the instant payment is not a brokerage commission, the Defendant received the instant payment from the Plaintiff without any legal cause, and thus, is obligated to return it in unjust enrichment. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that himself was the Plaintiff only introduced the instant restaurant, but did not intermediate the sale, and the instant payment was received as the interior work down payment or related equipment payment between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
B. We examine whether the payment of this case paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant constitutes a brokerage commission, as seen earlier, and the Defendant denies the fact of mediation. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is that the Defendant C.