(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.01.17 2018나2231

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) 서울북부지방법원 2019.01.17 2018나2231

부동산수수료 반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a licensed real estate agent operating a brokerage office with the trade name of “D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” on the first floor of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On June 4, 2015, E, the husband of the Plaintiff, concluded a lease agreement with H, the owner of the instant building, to lease the instant karaoke machine with the content that he/she takes over, under the Defendant’s brokerage, the facilities and rights to a singing practice room (hereinafter “the instant singing practice room”) of approximately 40 square meters in the underground space of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building (hereinafter “the instant singing practice room”). On June 6, 2015, E, the Plaintiff, concluded a lease agreement with H, the owner of the instant karaoke machine building, for a fixed period of KRW 22 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.8 million (including value-added tax), and for a fixed period of lease from June 19, 2015 to June 18, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, did not enter the lessor’s address and telephone number in the lease agreement while mediating a lease agreement on the instant karaoke machine building between the Plaintiff and H, and stated 1.8 million won, not in the monthly rent (excluding value-added tax), but did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact, and had the Plaintiff sign the lease agreement. On June 19, 2015, the Defendant received three million won from the Plaintiff as a brokerage commission.

The plaintiff sought the defendant's brokerage office several times in accordance with the above lease contract, but the defendant did not talk with the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendant did not fulfill its duty against the Plaintiff as a licensed real estate agent, the Plaintiff is obligated to refund three million won to the Plaintiff.

B. The facts and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone in the basic facts of the judgment under paragraph (1) are the defendant's brokerage.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.07 2016가단5064780

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.05.04 2015가단5149

-인천지방법원 2015.12.11 2014구합31326

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.01 2014가단5101333

-의정부지방법원 2015.01.22 2014나52019