beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On December 12, 2016, as the Defendant’s broker, sold a total of KRW 660 million (each of KRW 330 million), in total, KRW 2579 square meters of D miscellaneous land 992 square meters and KRW 2579 square meters of F forest owned by the Plaintiff’s wife E owned by the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s broker (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
(2) Upon entering into the instant sales contract, the Defendant paid 3 million won out of the brokerage commission to the Plaintiff. However, on April 21, 2017, the Defendant received the remainder from C, and paid 6,534,000 won (=660 million won x 0.9% of the brokerage commission x 0.9% of the brokerage commission) under the pretext of the brokerage commission, only the remainder after deducting the value-added tax of 5,534,000 won. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return 3 million won out of the brokerage commission to the Plaintiff on the day of the instant sales contract. (2) The Defendant was paid 3 million won out of the brokerage commission from the Plaintiff on the day of the contract, and received 46,534,000 won from the Plaintiff on the balance day, and received 4 million won on the balance day, and received 6,534,000 won from the Plaintiff.
B. At the time of the instant sales contract, the fact that the Plaintiff paid part of KRW 3 million to the Defendant as part of the brokerage commission does not conflict between the parties, but in full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s entries and the entire arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 4, 7, 8-1 through 4 of the evidence Nos. 8-1, 2-2, 4, 7, 8-1, and 8-4, the Defendant received four copies of the cashier’s check from the Plaintiff under the Plaintiff’s children (G and H) on April 21, 2017. The Defendant issued the tax invoice of KRW 6,534,00 in total, 3,267,000 on the same day and E, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant on the charge of fraud in relation to the instant case, but the Seoul Northern Northern District Prosecutors’ Office was found to have issued a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on July 13, 2018.
In light of this, the defendant's above assertion is reliable and the plaintiff submitted.