beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 12,110,995 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from May 31, 2014 to May 26, 2017.
Reasons
1. The assertion;
A. On July 8, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a consulting agreement with the Defendant on the purchase of real estate (only the instant real estate recorded in attached Form 1 through 10; hereinafter the same shall apply) outside the Gu and the Gu, and received consulting fees equivalent to 1.1% of the purchase amount. Under such agreement, on May 31, 2014, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay KRW 3,104,95,000 for the purchase price and KRW 34,154,50 for the purchase price and KRW 1,000 for the confirmation of legal relationship of the object of brokerage, etc., the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 10,505,50 for the total amount of transportation expenses and public book perusal fees, including KRW 35,145,50 for the purchase price, and KRW 1,505,50 for the purchase price.
In addition, even if the consulting cost of 1.1% is not recognized, 13,110,95 won, including the sum of the fees under the laws and regulations related to authorized brokerage, and the fee of 1,00,000,000 won, including the above transportation fee of 23,110,995 won, is obligated to pay 13,110,995 won, which is already paid.
On the other hand, the defendant argues that there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to pay the amount equivalent to 1.1% of the purchase price as the consulting fee, and that the plaintiff paid 12 million won as the brokerage fee to the plaintiff (the defendant first asserted that he paid 12 million won as the brokerage commission, but he stated that he paid 10 million won as the brokerage commission on the 8th date for pleading, which was stated that he paid 10 million won as the brokerage commission).
B. Counterclaim 1) The Defendant purchased 6 real estate, including the old and American land and buildings, through the Plaintiff’s brokerage, and paid KRW 1,763,280,000 to the Plaintiff. 2) Although the Plaintiff, who is a real estate broker, should comply with the duty of good faith and duty of care under the laws related to real estate brokerage, the Plaintiff is obliged to obtain monetary profits, such as brokerage commission, without the Defendant’s consent