beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a real estate broker who operates the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.
B. On September 14, 2018, the Defendant concluded a lease contract between the Plaintiff’s brokerage and E, setting the deposit amount of KRW 220,000,00 with respect to the G building H located in one parcel, including F, Jung-gu, Seoul.
At this time, the plaintiff promised to help the defendant get a loan for the entire loan.
The terms and conditions of the lease contract include the following: “E shall return the down payment to the Defendant at the time of the non-payment of the lease deposit.”
C. On September 21, 2018, the Defendant applied for a loan from a bank for a loan from a bank. On September 22, 2018, prior to the approval, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s request for payment of KRW 726,000 on September 22, 2018.
In the process, there was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thereafter the plaintiff did not play any role as an intermediary.
The defendant, by the J's brokerage operating the I Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, has re-established the same terms and conditions, and completed the implementation of the Jeonse loan contract with the help of J.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The legal relations between the real estate broker and the client shall be the same as the delegation relationship under the Civil Act;
If the terms of the contract of delegation have agreed on the amount of remuneration, the mandatary can claim the amount of the agreed remuneration in full.
However, in light of the developments leading up to delegation, the process and difficulty of delegation, the degree of input efforts, the specific benefits the mandator gained in the course of performing his/her duties, and all other circumstances revealed in the pleadings, a claim can be made only within the reasonable scope exceptionally, in a case where there are special circumstances to deem the amount of remuneration unduly excessive and contrary to the principle of trust and good faith and the principle of equity.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da107900, Apr. 12, 2012).