beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,082,420 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 14, 2015 to September 8, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 28, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract of KRW 1,040,000 for Pyeongtaek-si D and E land (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the broker of B, a licensed real estate agent, and paid KRW 100,00,000 to the said and two other parties as the down payment. On August 9, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 as the brokerage commission to the said B.
B. However, the Plaintiff agreed with the seller and two others, who agreed to cancel the instant sales contract, and if the said land is not sold until November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff offered KRW 30,000,000 from KRW 100,000 to KRW 30,000,000 paid to the Plaintiff by two other parties, and the Plaintiff returned KRW 60,70,000,000, which was paid by the seller to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received the said KRW 60,70,000 from two other parties.
C. Meanwhile, on September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff also requested the said B to intermediate the sale and purchase of the land on the said land, and accordingly, paid KRW 10,000,000 to B, who mediated the sale and purchase of the said land on the said land.
However, since there is no procedure to consult with the owner of the above land later, the above sales contract was not concluded.
On March 25, 2014, the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement under which the period of mutual aid between B and B was from March 28, 2014 to March 27, 2015; and that the amount of mutual aid was determined as KRW 100 million to guarantee liability arising from B’s brokerage (hereinafter “mutual aid agreement”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 3, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. At the time of the sales contract for the land above the summary of the claim 1 of Pyeongtaek-si D and E, B, a licensed real estate agent at the time of the sales contract for the land above, explained that the land above is capable of constructing at least 15 stories at a volume of 600% as a commercial area, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the belief that it is possible.