(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.03.18 2014나5175

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.03.18 2014나5175

중개수수료

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 2013, the Plaintiff operating a real estate brokerage office in the name of “C real estate” introduced two-story housing and site (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant to the Defendant’s attached wishing to purchase a building and site for the use of the office building at the end of the end of July 2013.

B. While the Plaintiff adjusted the terms and conditions of the contract for the conclusion of the sales contract between E and the Defendant along with the licensed real estate agent G who was requested by E to sell the instant real estate, from August 2013, the real estate brokerage office in the trade name “H real estate” was also going through the process of negotiating terms and conditions relating to the sale and purchase of the instant real estate between E and the Defendant.

C. On September 30, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with the seller E to purchase the instant real estate at KRW 2.17 billion with the seller E by designating the real estate agent I as the broker.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 6 evidence, Eul 4 evidence, G witnesses of the first instance court, J's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion introduced the instant real estate to the Defendant, and negotiated terms and conditions relating to the sale and purchase of the instant real estate between E and the Defendant. The Defendant informed “H real estate” of the information on the instant real estate to participate in the sales and purchase contract brokerage, and provided conditions that are favorable for the conclusion of the contract only to “H real estate” and provided conditions that are favorable for the conclusion of the contract, thereby concluding the instant real estate sales contract as an intermediary.

Therefore, the real estate sales contract of this case was substantially conducted as a broker by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was unfairly excluded from the stage of the formation of the sales contract, so the defendant is obligated to pay legal brokerage fees to the

B. As a matter of principle, the broker should complete the contract formation of the contract for the object of brokerage.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.05.15 2014나15871

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2013.04.25 2013고정309

-서울동부지방법원 2015.11.24 2013가합105760

-대구지방법원 2016.05.25 2015나18662

-광주지방법원 2021.04.09 2020나55380