logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.29 2017가단81992
중개보수 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the representative of the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul and 102, and E is the licensed real estate agent affiliated with the above office.

B. On April 26, 2017, the Defendant found the Plaintiff’s office and requested the purchase brokerage of the building.

E introduced to the Defendant the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul F building (hereinafter “the instant building”) and provided the Defendant with other information on G buildings, H buildings, I buildings, J buildings, and K buildings.

C. On August 16, 2017, the Defendant concluded a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the instant building and site as KRW 8.9 billion, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 31, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Article 15(2) of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act provides that the act of a licensed real estate agent affiliated with a licensed real estate agent or brokerage assistant shall be deemed the act of a practicing licensed real estate agent affiliated with a licensed real estate agent or brokerage assistant who employs the licensed real estate agent. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 4, 5, 9, and 11, the plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent affiliated with a licensed real estate agent of a licensed real estate agent, E recognizes the fact that the agent acting as a licensed real estate agent of the plaintiff, and E recognizes the fact that the broker

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not have the right to claim the brokerage fee because the plaintiff did not directly act as intermediary for the building of this case is rejected.

B. Meanwhile, a broker may claim a payment of brokerage remuneration only when a contract has been concluded between the client and the other party by his/her own act of brokerage, and even if the broker has made an endeavor as a broker, if the contract was not concluded by his/her act of brokerage, the broker’s remuneration equivalent to the degree of effort.

arrow