beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.07.18 2018가단113055

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion made an oral contract with the Defendant, the owner of the building, on behalf of the broker assistant of the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in Gyeongcheon-si, Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), to sell 3% of the sales price as a sales agency fee, and by introducing the instant commercial building to the F Association (hereinafter “F”) and allowing F to sell Gho-ho, H-ho, and I among them. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay fees for the performance of the contract with the Plaintiff (=3,094,180,000 won x 3% of the sales commission rate).

2. Therefore, first of all, as to whether a sales agency contract for the commercial building of this case was concluded orally between the plaintiff and the defendant, there are several statements (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) as evidence corresponding to the plaintiff's assertion, but considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective statements in subparagraphs 1 through 6, witness J and K's testimony and arguments, each of the above evidences alone is difficult to recognize that a sales agency contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was concluded, and there is no other evidence to support this differently, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without any need to further examine.

1) In order to publicize the sale of the instant commercial building scheduled to be newly built on or around June 2014 (the Defendant’s assertion that the construction permit was previously granted), the Defendant distributed the shop sale guidance and the shop sale drawings to the Liquefied real estate brokerage office, etc. where the instant commercial building was located. At the time, the Defendant did not have any specific time to enter into a sales agency contract on the instant commercial building, and it is difficult to deem that the Defendant intended to subscribe to the sales agency contract on the sole basis of the delivery of the shop sale guidance, etc. as above.