(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.02.13 2014나17685

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 2015.02.13 2014나17685

중개수수료

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the real estate sales contract (hereinafter "the sales contract of this case") was arranged between the seller, E, F and the defendant et al. on March 6, 2009 to transfer the G forest land of KRW 11207 square meters (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") to KRW 900 million in the purchase price between the seller, E, F and the purchaser on March 6, 209.

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is responsible for paying to the plaintiff 4,050,000 won (8,100,000 won x 1/200 x 1/2) of the statutory brokerage commission agreed upon upon upon upon the conclusion of the contract of this case from both the seller E, F and the defendant. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff had mediated the contract of this case by receiving a request from the defendant for the brokerage of the real estate in addition to E and F, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff had mediated the contract of this case. Rather, according to the purport of Gap evidence 9, testimony and oral argument from the witness D, the plaintiff, the seller, E and D, without receiving a request from the seller, E and the buyer, for the mediation of this case, and the testimony of the witness H is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff had received a request from the broker of this case. Thus, the plaintiff was not required to accept the request from the broker of this case.

According to the purport of Gap's evidence 1 and 7, witness D's testimony and pleading, even if the plaintiff had mediated the sales contract of this case at the request of both the seller, E, F and the buyer for real estate brokerage, the defendant entered into a real estate consulting contract with the JJ of the I real estate of this case and formed a consulting contract with the plaintiff around February 20, 209.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2014.01.15 2013고정790

-부산지방법원 2015.02.06 2014나7442

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.25 2019가단5309842

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.06.28 2017고단835

-수원지방법원 2013.03.28 2012노5348