2015 Gohap59216 Service Fees

Corporation A

Law Firm 00

Attorney 000

Corporation B

Law Firm 00

Attorney in charge 000

May 12, 2016

August 25, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 222,377,385 won and the amount calculated by each of 6% per annum from August 1, 2015 to the service date of the application for modification of the purport and cause of the claim of this case, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of the sales agency business of commercial buildings, and the Defendant is a company established for the purpose of leasing real estate and newly building and selling commercial buildings.

B. On May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales agency service contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the commercial building located in the light-based place with the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant sales title”).

C. The instant contract is a contract with the objective of the successful termination of the sale of the subject matter of this case by prescribing matters necessary for the Plaintiff to vicariously carry out the Defendant’s sales business through professional sale planning and marketing activities. The main contents are as follows.

Sales agency service contract document

Article 2 (Scope of Duties) (1) "A shall, at the time of entering into this contract, delegate the sales of the said object to B". (2) The scope of the sales agency services to be performed "B" is as follows: 3. The operation and maintenance of the sales office to be used; 3. The management of the sales agency and the cooperation for the payment of the sales price; 4. The management of the sales agency and the payment of the sales price; 5. The management of the sales agency and the cooperation for the sales of the sales agency; 6.6.6. other affairs related to the promotion of the sales of the sales agency:

7. "A" cooperates with the affairs of approval for parcelling-out. (3) "B" shall be made in good faith to ensure early parcelling-out at reasonable prices. (5) (1) "A" shall be made 6% of the total parcelling-out price of the object of parcelling-out. (2) "A" shall be made at the rate of 3% payment at the time of the contract for parcelling-out, 1.5% payment at the time of the first intermediate payment, and 1.5% "B" shall be made at the time of the second intermediate payment, and "I" shall not be made at the expense of "I" if the items under the contract are terminated before the first installment payment, and "I" shall not be made at the expense of "I" and "I" shall not be made at the expense of the following items:

D. The number of commercial buildings in the subject matter of sale in this case is 34, among which eight, the plaintiff, the 23 defendant and the 3 third party led to the conclusion of each sales contract, and the 3 was paid as payment for the construction price of the subject matter of sale in this case.

E. The Plaintiff was fully paid a sales commission for the said eight objects sold by the Plaintiff from the Defendant among the objects of sale in this case, but among the objects of sale in this case, the Plaintiff was not paid a sales commission for the commercial buildings sold by the Defendant or a third party or paid by the payment in kind (hereinafter “the objects of sale in this case”). The details of the third party’s objects of sale in this case are as shown in the attached Form (attached Form omitted).

F. Meanwhile, the defendant paid the money under the name of "MGM1" or "SGM2" fee (hereinafter referred to as "MGM fee") to the third party who induced the conclusion of the contract for the sale of the object of sale to a third party. [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 18 (including the lot number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

The instant contract is an exclusive contract, and a third party is the result of combining the Plaintiff’s prior promotional work, etc., so even if the principal agent who led the conclusion of the contract is the Defendant or the third party, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff 6% of the total purchase price of the third party object as a sales agency fee. However, since the Plaintiff also recognized the MGM fee of 3%, the Defendant should pay the remainder (3%) after deducting it from the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant

The contract of this case is not exclusive contract, but the most important business to induce the conclusion of the contract during the sale of buildings in lots, and the plaintiff's sales performance is low and the defendant has not been obliged to pay the sales agency fee to the plaintiff in the case of the third party who has concluded the sales contract with the payment of the fees for MGM to the third party.

3. Determination:

A. Whether the instant contract constitutes an exclusive contract

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant contract is an exclusive contract. Rather, there is no express provision that excludes the Defendant from the direct sale of the instant contract, or there is no separate provision that the sales agency fee belongs to the Plaintiff when the Defendant sold the instant contract directly or through a third party after the conclusion of the instant contract. According to the instant contract, it is a principle to prepare an offer and a sales contract at a higher price (Article 7), etc., it is difficult to view that the instant contract is to exclude the Defendant from selling the instant contract directly or through a third party.

B. Legal nature of the instant contract

The instant contract may be deemed to have entrusted the Plaintiff with the affairs of sale of the subject matter of this case (Article 2), and may be deemed to have caused a delegation contract performing the sale of the subject matter of this case with its own effort and expenses (Article 6). However, in relation to the Plaintiff’s remuneration, the instant contract provides that when the sale of the subject matter of this case is completed with respect to the Plaintiff’s remuneration, the Plaintiff shall be paid 6% of the total purchase price by the Defendant for each time as a sales agency fee (Article 5). The Plaintiff’s performance of the public relations, etc. of the subject matter of this case’s sales is not paid any remuneration upon the completion of the contract, but to be paid any remuneration equivalent to 6% of the total sale price at the time of the completion of the contract with the Plaintiff’s above efforts and expenses. Accordingly, the instant contract is a mixed contract with the nature of delegation contract and the contract.

C. It is difficult to regard the contract of this case as exclusive contract, and it has the nature of the contract in relation to the plaintiff's remuneration. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to say that in the contract of this case, the principal owner and the burden of proof regarding the completion of work exists on the part of the contractor who seeks payment of remuneration for the result of the work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da26684, Nov. 22, 1994). Thus, unless there is no proof as to the fact that the sale of a third party was completed on the part of the plaintiff's effort and cost (i.e., the sale of a third party was completed), it is difficult to view that the contract of this case has the obligation to pay a sales agency fee under the contract of this case to the defendant merely because the plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case has been completed, and it is not possible to recognize the liability for damages arising from the non-performance on the premise that

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Hero (Presiding Judge)

rights and leathers

As early as possible:

1) The term "member" means a manner in which customers attract customers to and receive a kind of fee from a member "member" to a partner.

(ii)the officers and employees of the Company as the weak of Staff Get Mbers are attracting customers and receiving a kind of fees through their relatives and scams around them;

means the method.