부동산 중개보수료 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or newly made at the trial is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following 2. 3. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Part II of the judgment of the first instance court is "Evidences 1 through 32, and Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment of the second instance" with "Evidences 1 through 4 of the first instance court."
The second place of the judgment of the court of first instance, “1959 square meters” is added to “D road 76 square meters.”
The second third party decision of the first instance court shall add “the rate of delay damages” from the next day after the date of the sales contract.
Part 3 of the judgment of the first instance court is "each description and image of the evidence of No. 7 through No. 29" in Part 12 of the judgment of the third instance.
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant asserts that E cannot be viewed as a brokerage act of the plaintiff in the sale of the real estate in this case since E is not a brokerage assistant of the plaintiff.
However, comprehensively taking account of the written evidence Nos. 30 and 33 and the purport of the whole pleadings, E can be acknowledged as having served as a broker assistant of a licensed real estate agent operated by the Plaintiff from October 19, 2015. Thus, E’s occupational act may be deemed as the Plaintiff’s act.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant exclusive brokerage agreement is null and void since the instant real estate sales price did not reach the sales price stipulated in the exclusive brokerage agreement (hereinafter “instant exclusive brokerage agreement”).
According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 3 and the whole pleadings, the agreement of the exclusive brokerage in this case states that "the contract period shall be four months. The sale price: 16,500,000,000 won" is stated in the agreement of the exclusive brokerage in this case, and the real estate in this case is traded in KRW 15,70,000.