logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.11.25 2015가단27292
중개수수료
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 4,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and the period from June 12, 2015 to November 25, 2016.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, the representative director of the Defendants, mediated the sale and purchase of the factory building on the land outside Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, and five lots of land.

However, the above D, while visiting the above factory building several times together with the plaintiff, was to find out a loan for the preparation of purchase fund, and then concluded a sales contract for the above factory building without making contact with the plaintiff and excluding the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a brokerage commission equivalent to KRW 0.9% of the purchase price of the above factory building 3,964,00,000.

B. The Plaintiff was merely a mere introduction of the above factory building, and did not proceed to specific brokerage activities.

Therefore, the Defendants are not obligated to pay brokerage fees to the Plaintiff.

2. The judgment of the broker is to mediate the transaction, exchange, lease, and other acts concerning the acquisition, loss, and transfer of rights between the parties to the transaction regarding the object of brokerage, and in principle, the broker may claim a brokerage commission to the client only after the completion of the contract by the preparation of the contract, etc. concerning the object of brokerage. However, in special circumstances, such as where the broker has ceased his/her act of brokerage due to the cause not attributable to the broker, and the broker has failed to participate in the preparation, etc. of the final contract, etc., the broker shall be entitled to claim a brokerage commission corresponding to the degree of the broker's act already performed against the client, in light of Article 686(3) of the Civil Act, the purport of Article 61

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da12432, Apr. 27, 2007). Each of the evidence and evidence Nos. 1 through 20 and Nos. 1 through 10 (including the number of pages) and witness F in the instant case.

arrow