logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.10 2014가단229489
중개수수료
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion is that "the plaintiff is a broker operating real estate brokerage business, and provides the defendant with all of the real estate services as licensed real estate agents in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 117 Dong 601 (hereinafter "the real estate of this case"). The defendant, while excluding the plaintiff immediately before entering into the contract, entered into a sales contract with the seller and completed the registration of ownership transfer, the defendant is obligated to pay 32,96,700 won, which is the legal brokerage commission (0.9% value-added tax) to the plaintiff."

2. Determination:

A. The relevant legal principle brokerage act mediates the act of the broker with respect to the sale, exchange, lease, and other acquisition, loss, and other rights between the parties to the transaction regarding the object of brokerage. In principle, the broker may claim a brokerage commission to the broker only after the conclusion of the contract is completed, such as the preparation of the contract concerning the object of brokerage. However, in special circumstances, such as where the broker discontinued the act of brokerage for reasons for which the broker was not responsible and the broker was unable to participate in the preparation, etc. of the final contract even though the broker served as a decision on the formation of the contract, the broker shall be deemed to have the authority to claim a brokerage commission corresponding to the extent of the act of brokerage which was already performed by the broker.

B. According to each statement of the evidence submitted in this case, the plaintiff's person responsible for the management of the real estate of this case was acknowledged to the extent that the real estate of this case can be seen twice. However, further, there is no additional brokerage business performed by the plaintiff in relation to the establishment of the real estate sales contract of this case.

arrow