logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.14 2019가단5141947
기타(금전)
Text

1. The Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant (Appointed Party) B, Appointed E, F and the Defendants are all dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was serving as an employee of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and around March 26, 2019, from around April 2019, the Plaintiff was operating a licensed real estate agent office of the trade name “J Licensed Real Estate Agent” located in Songpa-gu International Commercial Building from around April 2019 to around April 26, 2019, and 3 of the Defendant (Appointed Party B) B (hereinafter “Defendant B”), Appointed E, and Selection F, share the above 2nd floor L. Defendant D owned the above 2nd floor. Defendant D collectively refers to the above 2nd floor M, N,O, P, and Q (hereinafter the above subparagraphs subparagraphs through Q).

B. Around June 27, 2019, Defendant B, Selected E, and K entered into a contract for leasing the above L in the instant commercial building with Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Bank”). Defendant D also entered into a contract for leasing the above LA, N,O, and P (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the above contracts”) with Defendant Bank on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 12-1, 2, and 3-1, Eul's evidence 3-1, 2-2, Eul's evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that he was delegated by Defendant B and the designated parties (hereinafter “Defendant B, etc.”) and Defendant D with the brokerage of the lease agreement of each of the instant units, and provided the Defendant Bank’s officers with information, such as lease deposit, rent, etc., and commercial building drawings. The Plaintiff made several contacts with the Defendants and the designated parties, and made efforts to conclude a lease agreement.

Although the lease contract between the Defendants was almost the stage of sexual history as a broker by the Plaintiff, the Defendants excluded the Plaintiff without any special reasons immediately before the conclusion of the contract, and concluded each of the instant lease contracts through other licensed real estate agents.

Therefore, Article 686 (3) of the Civil Code and Article 61 of the Commercial Code.

arrow