(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.30 2017나63146

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) 수원지방법원 2017.11.30 2017나63146

기타(금전)

Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a practicing licensed real estate agent operating a mutual brokerage office, “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”.

B. On August 18, 2016, the Plaintiff intended to enter into a contract with the Plaintiff to transfer or acquire the right to the pertinent shopping mall (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) for KRW 45 million during the period of Ansan-si and the Defendant’s brokerage, and KRW 310,000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”). However, the said contract was nonexistent.

C. On September 2016, the Defendant concluded a lease contract for the instant commercial building as a broker of H that operates the “G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) while carrying out the brokerage of the premium contract for the instant commercial building while the Plaintiff was carrying out, the contract was concluded on the monthly rent for the instant commercial building. However, according to Article 5 of the said premium contract, service fees are required to be paid simultaneously with the conclusion of this contract, and even if the contract is rescinded due to the reasons between the parties without the intention or negligence of the broker, the service fees are to be borne. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4.95 million, plus value added tax, 4.5 million, equivalent to 10% of the premium for the instant commercial building. (2) The terms and conditions of the instant premium contract are stipulated in Articles 4 and 5 of the terms and conditions of the instant premium contract, which are stipulated that “4.0,000 won, this contract is a contract between the lessees, and it is effective when the lessor and the instant contract were concluded.” However, the owner of the instant commercial building did not change the terms and conditions of the instant premium contract to a new lessor.

(2).

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.29 2014나45958

-인천지방법원 2016.11.29 2015가단224215

-울산지방법원 2019.11.29 2018가단66885

-대법원 2019. 7. 10. 선고 2018다239608 판결

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.08.10 2015가단24638