beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.13 2017나50005

수수료

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. In the foregoing case, AMC Co., Ltd., the executing company of Ctel, sought payment of the amount stated in the purport of the claim against the Taewon Industrial Development Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “TTA”), and the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the sales agency of the above officetels between the Plaintiff and the Taewon Industrial Development Group (hereinafter referred to as the “TTA”) in the first instance trial, but the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed regarding the Taewon Industries, and the judgment of the first instance between the Plaintiff and Tae

B. The Taewon Industry concluded a contract with the Defendant who is engaged in the real estate sales agency business and delegated the sales agency business to the Defendant.

After that, the defendant recruited human resources engaged in agency business such as the plaintiff and conducted the sales agency business.

C. A person who has been engaged in sales agency business such as the Plaintiff has received fees from the Defendant for entering into sales contracts.

On the other hand, the plaintiff concluded a sales contract for the above officetel 323, but did not receive a total of KRW 10,900,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant, who performs the sales business of the above officetel under the sales contract by the sales agency, is obligated to pay the plaintiff an agreed fee upon the conclusion of the above sales contract

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the fees of KRW 10,900,000 and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1, the Defendant asserts that the Taewon Industries, not the Defendant, is obligated to pay the fee to the Plaintiff, and even if not, the Taewon Industries did not pay the sales agency fee to the Defendant, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the fee to the Plaintiff.2)