logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울남부지방법원 2014.12.23 2014가단17477
분양대행용역계약보증금반환 등
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 63,265,490 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from February 27, 2014 to December 23, 2014, and December 24, 2014.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not dispute each other; or (b) the entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2; and (c) the purport of Gap evidence 7-1.

On April 2, 2010, the Defendant and Nonparty Shee Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Shee Construction Co., Ltd.”) entered into a contract on behalf of the Defendant with respect to the total number of commercial buildings and two commercial buildings in the Southern apartment complex in Geumcheon-dong, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”) located in 789 and 2 lots owned by Shee Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Shee Construction Co., Ltd.”) on behalf of the Defendant.

B. around March 4, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant entrusting the Plaintiff with the affairs of selling the instant commercial buildings by proxy. The Defendant agreed to set the Defendant’s fee to be paid to the Plaintiff as 3.5% of the total sales price sold by the Plaintiff and pay the amount equivalent to the value-added tax rate separately

(2) The contract of this case is referred to only as "the contract of this case".

On March 4, 2011, the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million to the Defendant as the down payment under the instant contract.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In full view of the evidence and the facts acknowledged in the above basic facts and the purport of the entire pleadings that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to return KRW 35 million paid to the defendant as contract deposit at the time of the termination of the contract of this case, and there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the fact that the time of return comes due. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay 35 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. In full view of the evidence before filing a claim for the payment of the sales agency fee, the contents acknowledged in the above basic facts, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff vicariously performed this case’s contract.