beta
Text
1. The defendant's claim for brokerage commission is made against the plaintiff in Suwon District Court 2015Gau1099.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 28, 2015, the Defendant received a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 1,530,000 won and interest thereon at the rate of 20% per annum from May 5, 2015 to the date of full payment,” and the said decision on performance recommendation was finalized on May 19, 2015.
B. Based on the instant decision on performance recommendation, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory auction of real estate with Suwon District Court Branch C, and the said court rendered a decision to commence the auction on January 12, 2016.
C. Accordingly, on November 17, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 2,964,777 as Seoul Central District Court No. 4139, 2016.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The expenses required for compulsory execution under Article 53(1) of the Civil Execution Act shall be borne by the debtor, and the expenses for such execution shall be reimbursed preferentially in the execution. The expenses shall be borne by the debtor without any separate title, and may be collected together with the claims indicated in the execution title in the compulsory execution procedure concerned, based on the relevant executive title, which serves as the basis for the execution. Therefore, in a case of objection, even if the original obligation indicated in the executive title is extinguished by repayment or deposit, the whole executory power of the relevant executive title shall not be claimed unless the debtor reimburses the expenses for the execution.
B. We examine the instant case. The Defendant paid KRW 6,00 of registration tax, KRW 1,200 of education tax, KRW 6,000 of education tax, KRW 6,500 of revenue stamps, KRW 10,500 of revenue stamps, and KRW 54,826 of service fee (the service fee was 248,50,000 as of May 25, 2017, which was the date of the closing of argument in the instant case, and was used as enforcement cost), list and tax amount KRW 30,00,00.