Plaintiff

Defendant

August 20, 2010

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Gadan43919 Decided December 9, 2009

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 13 million won with 5% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment (the plaintiff reduced the purport of the claim in the trial).

1. Basic facts

A. On December 3, 2002, the Plaintiff listened to the information that the Nonparty intended to sell the land site of Jung-gu, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City.

B. In relation to the conclusion of the above sales contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to the Defendant on December 12, 2002. On January 27, 2003, the Plaintiff issued and delivered a promissory note with the maturity date as of February 5, 2003.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Unjust enrichment due to deception;

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant had the plaintiff enter into the sales contract of this case by deceiving the plaintiff on the current business status of the above Moel and received 10 million won as commission. However, each statement of Gap 6 and 8 alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant's deception of the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. Unjust enrichment on the ground of violation of the mandatory law

1) The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, not a broker, arranged for the sale and purchase of each real estate of this case and received fees from the plaintiff, was based on the mediation commission payment agreement that is null and void due to the violation of the mandatory law, and thus, the defendant is obligated to refund the brokerage commission and the damages for delay corresponding thereto to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff is obligated to return to the plaintiff the sales commission and the damages for delay. Accordingly, the defendant is denied the purchase of each real estate of this case from the non-party on the ground that the plaintiff was seeking to obtain a loan from each of the real estate of this case as security, and requested the non-party to help the non-party to purchase the real estate of this case, and the defendant provided the non-party'

2) Determination

The former Real Estate Brokerage Act (amended by Act No. 7638, Jul. 29, 2005; hereinafter “Act”) provides for the purpose of guiding and fostering real estate brokerage business in a sound manner and properly regulating real estate brokerage business so as to enhance public confidence of real estate brokers and establish a fair real estate transaction order, thereby contributing to the protection of people’s property rights (Article 1); and stipulates strictly the qualification requirements for real estate brokerage business to carry on real estate brokerage business; and detailed regulations on matters to be observed and sanctions against violations thereof, such as Articles 15 and 20 of the Act provide that the provisions on real estate brokerage commission, such as Articles 15 and 20 of the Act, shall be the so-called mandatory regulations that restrict judicial effects on the portion exceeding the prescribed limit among the terms of the contract for brokerage commission, and therefore, the above provision provides that brokerage commission and brokerage business shall not be deemed to fall under the category of brokerage commission and brokerage commission, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff is an act of brokerage or brokerage between the clients and the clients (see Article 200).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and it shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-young