logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.27 2019나53664
중개수수료
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 1, 2017, the Defendant and C concluded a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, to sell KRW 3,950,000,00 of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D major 210.3 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant, to C, and the intermediate payment of KRW 200,000,000,000, when entering into a contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 200,000,000, as of August 31, 2017, to pay KRW 3,550,000 each of the remainder, as of January 5, 2018 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff prepared a contract and a description verifying the object of brokerage, and delivered it to the Defendant and C. The instant sales contract in the same text contains the following: (a) “ practicing licensed real estate agent is not liable for the default of this contract by the seller or buyer; and (b) brokerage fees shall be paid by both parties to the contract at the same time as this contract is concluded; and (c) brokerage fees shall be paid even after the contract is invalidated, cancelled or terminated without the intention or negligence by the practicing licensed real estate agent; (d) in the case of joint brokerage, the seller and the buyer shall pay brokerage fees to the practicing licensed real estate agent who requested the brokerage (Article 7), respectively; and (e) the description verifying object of brokerage fees shall be written as KRW 39,105,00 (including value-added tax) and the calculation statement shall be written as “(3,950,000,000

C. The Defendant, C, and the Plaintiff respectively signed and sealed the above sales contract and the confirmation description of the object of brokerage respectively.

C did not prepare the purchase price on the agreed remaining payment date, and the Defendant had extended the remaining payment date by more than one year, but the sales contract of this case was terminated on December 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) Determination as to the existence of the obligation to pay the brokerage remuneration (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties concerned is the case.

arrow