beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.08.19 2016나41514

용역비

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. On October 7, 2013, Defendant C asked the Plaintiff to trade real estate trading and brokerage by having contact with the head of the office D working for the Plaintiff Company, stating that the commercial building located in Suwon-gu, Busan would be purchased at KRW 2 billion.

D) Accordingly, D prepared a report on the fourth floor building (the sale price of KRW 2,150,000,000) located in Busan Young-gu and the fifth floor building located in Busan Young-gu G (the sale price of KRW 2,150,000,000) and the fifth floor building located in Suwon-gu G (the sale price of KRW 2,150,000,000) and sent the report to Defendant C by facsimile on October 9, 2013.

However, on October 11, 2013, Defendant C entered into a sales contract with H, the owner of the instant building without going through the Plaintiff’s brokerage, and again, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) whose inside director is Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is the instant sales contract between H and H on October 28, 2013.

After concluding the B, the registration of ownership transfer is completed on December 26, 2013.

The Plaintiff did not participate in the preparation of a sales contract without any cause, even though the Plaintiff contributed to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, so the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a brokerage commission to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. Legal broker may claim a payment of brokerage commission only in cases where a contract has been concluded between the client and the other party by his/her own brokerage act. Even if the broker performs a brokerage act, if the contract was not finally concluded or the contract was not concluded due to such brokerage act, the broker may not claim the client to pay the brokerage commission.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4289Sang81, Apr. 12, 1956): Provided, That although a contract has been entered into almost a certain stage of sexual intercourse due to a broker’s act, the client and the other party conspired with each other for the purpose of evading a brokerage commission.