logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2014.06.25 2013가단31204
용역비
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The fact that the Defendant acquired each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the process of the auction of the real estate C in this Court is recognized by the entry in the evidence No. 2 (including the serial number) as the fact that the Defendant completed the procedure of the transfer of ownership on July 27, 2011 is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized by the entry in the

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff, while acquiring the instant real estate in the auction procedure, provided consultation on the analysis of various rights, such as lien issues, authorization and permission issues, successful bid price determination, and permission for the use of adjoining roads. The Defendant also paid KRW 38,335,800 to the Plaintiff a total of 2% of the successful bid price (1,916,790,000) with the above consulting fees.

B. According to Article 2 subparag. 1 and 3 of the former Licensed Real Estate Agents’ Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 18, 2014; hereinafter “Judicial Brokerage Act”), “mediation” means the mediation of sale, exchange, lease, and other gain, loss, and transfer of rights between parties to a transaction with respect to the objects of brokerage (land, buildings, and other fixtures on the land) under Article 3, and “trust business” means the business of acting as a broker at another person’s request for a fixed remuneration.

However, the issue of whether a broker constitutes an act of brokerage falling under the business of a licensed real estate agent shall not be determined on the basis of the broker's subjective intent to mediate a transaction on behalf of a transaction party, not on the basis of whether the broker has an intention to do so, but on the basis of whether the broker's act is objectively deemed to be an act of brokerage for a transaction

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da102940 Decided June 27, 2013).

arrow