(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.10.14 2016나2021 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산지방법원 2016.10.14 2016나2021

수수료반환

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. On January 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a delegation contract with the Plaintiff and F, for the sale of the building located in the Busan Jung-gu and the Busan Jung-gu and the Busan Jung-gu and the building located in two lots (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), which is owned by the Defendant, with the purchaser, regarding the consultation with the purchaser, the conclusion of the sales contract and the receipt of the purchase price, and the business preparation for the purchaser to use the said real estate immediately. The Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 70 million with the remuneration, and KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff.

In accordance with the delegation contract above, the Plaintiff had negotiated several times with E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and eventually, on August 6, 2013, a sales contract for each of the instant real estate was concluded between the Defendant and E, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the same day.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 100 million won as remuneration agreed upon to the plaintiff who performed the entrusted business and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. It is insufficient to recognize the fact that Gap evidence Nos. 5, 11, and 12 (including a serial number) was entered into a delegation contract with the plaintiff, F and the defendant to delegate the affairs related to the sale of the real estate of this case between the plaintiff, F and the defendant, and a fee payment agreement of KRW 100 million, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the evidence No. 12 and evidence No. 1, the defendant entered into a direct sales contract with G on May 20, 2013 (the plaintiff seems to have entered into a sales contract with G on behalf of the husband of G) to sell each of the real estate of this case owned by the defendant for KRW 570 million, and the above sales contract may be acknowledged as having no indication as the broker. Accordingly, according to the above facts, according to the above facts, the plaintiff entered into the sales contract, and the plaintiff acted as a broker.

or the execution of a contract.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.01.12 2017가단531259

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.02.13 2018나23185

-서울북부지방법원 2018.07.12 2017가단27621

-의정부지방법원 2017.10.27 2016가단108922

-대전지방법원서산지원 2019.02.21 2017가합51503