beta
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. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On September 3, 2013, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to sell a multi-household house with three floors above the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ground C (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff at KRW 1.99 billion, and the Plaintiff consented thereto.
However, the Defendant demanded that the Plaintiff affix a seal on the sales contract, the sales price of which is KRW 1.24 billion, and the Plaintiff was 1.24 billion, and the Plaintiff was able to actually receive money after deducting the burden related to real estate, such as lease deposit, not the total sales price. The Plaintiff at this end affixed a seal on the sales contract, the sales price of which is KRW 1.24 billion.
However, the fact was that KRW 1.24 billion was the total purchase price of the instant real estate, and the money that the Plaintiff could actually receive was limited to KRW 490 million after deducting KRW 750 million from the lease deposit.
The Defendant did not explain such fact to the Plaintiff, leading the Plaintiff to mistake and using it, thereby mediating the sale and purchase of the instant real estate, and received 1,1160,000 won brokerage commission from the Plaintiff.
Since the buyer D also knew such circumstances and rescinded the agreement on the sales contract of the instant real estate with the Plaintiff, the Defendant should return the brokerage commission to the Plaintiff.
B. It is not clear whether the Plaintiff sought damages on the grounds of tort such as the Defendant’s deception and mistake, or sought the return of the brokerage commission on the grounds of the rescission of the sales contract or the failure of the contract
However, the latter's argument includes the purport that there is no reason to pay a brokerage commission, but the core is that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the plaintiff had entered into a sales contract due to the defendant's deception.
First, the fact that the Defendant arranged the instant real estate sales contract and received KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff is the party.