손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Recognizing the fact that the Plaintiff colored a store to operate one Council member, and entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant C, a licensed real estate agent of the “D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office,” as the broker of Defendant B, which is the broker, between E and E, on May 13, 2015, regarding the “F building No. 701 in Yongsan-gu, Youngyang-gu” (hereinafter “instant store”).
[Area of lease contract] written in the above contract refers to "198.34 square meters," but [place] column includes "attached Form A" in addition to the address of the store in this case, and the drawing attached to the lease contract is stated "701 (A) 55 square meters."
On the other hand, the letter of confirmation of the object of brokerage (hereinafter referred to as the "statement") issued to the Plaintiff along with the lease contract is written as follows: (a) the use in the building ledger of the store in this case is a neighboring student; and (b) the actual purpose is a "Korean Council member."
However, in the building ledger of the instant store, its use was stated as “educational research facilities (private teaching institutes)”.
According to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff performed interior works for Hanwon's business from May 21, 2015 to May 35, 2015, which is the remainder payment date of lease deposit, and the Plaintiff paid management expenses from the remainder date to E.
However, around May 29, 2015, when the Plaintiff had performed the Rotterdam Corporation, the manager of the instant store visited the construction site and confirmed the progress of the Rotterdam Corporation in a larger area than the leased area, and raised an objection against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the lessor caused disputes as to the leased area between the Plaintiff and the lessor.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not pay a brokerage fee to the Defendants even after the remainder of the lease deposit payment date, and the Defendant B requested the Plaintiff to pay the brokerage fee in the process.