(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.07.16 2015나1374 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2015.07.16 2015나1374

중개수수료

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, engaging in the real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”, arranged a lease agreement between the Defendant and D to lease the whole seven floors of the instant building E on the ground (hereinafter “instant leased object”) with D by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000,000, monthly rent, KRW 1,650,000, and the lease term of KRW 1,650,000 from September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Article 8 of the instant lease agreement states, “The real estate broker and the lessee are not liable for the nonperformance of this contract.” Moreover, the brokerage commission is paid by both parties to the contract at the time of the conclusion of this contract, and even if this contract is invalidated, cancelled, or cancelled without the intention or negligence of the broker, the brokerage commission shall be paid.” The special terms of the instant lease agreement state, “If the permission of the competent administrative agency is not inevitable to use the special terms of the lease agreement for the purpose of use of the lessee, the lessee shall restore the lease to its original state, and the lessor shall return the deposit and cancel the contract.”

C. At the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,755,000 ( KRW 195,000,000 x 0.9% of the brokerage commission) as brokerage commission.

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition”, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (Evidence Nos. 1 and 1) are written, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,755,000 won a brokerage commission under the agreement of this case.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The defendant asserts that the object of the lease of this case can be changed from business facilities to educational facilities, and that permission can be granted.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.22 2016가단58360

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.08 2015가단5013822

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.03.27 2013가단174223

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.27 2014나20676

-수원지방법원 2017.04.25 2016나15782