logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.23 2014가단195364
대부중개료
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is engaged in financial and real estate consulting business in his/her trade name.

B. On March 17, 2014, on April 2, 2014, if the Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 4.3 billion and KRW 2.3 billion at an annual interest rate of not more than 4.72% from the Defendant as security for Eelto D (hereinafter “instant real estate No. 1”), the Plaintiff entered into a consulting fee payment agreement with the Defendant to pay KRW 68 million to the Plaintiff as service payment.

C. On March 31, 2014, with the Plaintiff’s aid, the Defendant borrowed KRW 4.3 billion from the Nonghyup as security the instant real estate No. 1.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The amount of the Plaintiff’s alleged service is KRW 60 million for the loan of the instant real estate No. 1, and KRW 8 million for the loan of the instant real estate No. 2. The Plaintiff: (a) visited financial institutions with the data on the instant real estate No. 1 and explained them to find out a financial institution capable of a secured loan by submitting and explaining the data on the loan; and (b) provided a loan secured by the instant real estate No. 1; and (c) accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the service price of KRW 60 million.

B. Defendant 1) The loan brokerage agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is null and void as an act prohibited by law. (2) Although the Plaintiff agreed to obtain a loan of KRW 4.3 billion and KRW 2.3 billion each of the instant real estate as collateral, the Plaintiff did not obtain a loan of KRW 4.3 billion with the instant real estate as collateral, and did not have to obtain a loan of KRW 1.3 billion with the instant real estate as collateral, the Plaintiff failed to perform its duty under the instant service agreement, and the Defendant did not obtain a loan of KRW 2 real estate as collateral, thereby causing damage to the Defendant.

3. Determination of credit business.

arrow