beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent running D in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. The Defendant is a licensed real estate agent running F in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, and the fact that G and H concluded a real estate sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase price on July 18, 2017 and three lots and buildings outside Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul and three lots and buildings outside Seongdong-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as the Defendant’s brokerage, with the amount of KRW 9 billion, may not be disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by the statement in the evidence No. 1.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. In the Plaintiff’s alleged real estate transaction transaction, where the intermediary who received a request from the seller and the buyer participated in the transaction in cooperation, each intermediary will receive the respective intermediary commission from the seller and the buyer. The Defendant, along with the Plaintiff, who jointly arranged the instant real estate sales contract, obtained the intermediary commission from the seller and the buyer, thereby making up unjust enrichment from the seller to the intermediary commission to be received by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff should return to the Plaintiff KRW 39,60,000 (including value-added tax).
B. (1) Determination (1) Licensed real estate agents may receive the fixed remuneration concerning brokerage business from the clients, and brokerage means mediating the sale, exchange, lease and other acts of gain, loss and transfer of rights between the parties to the transaction regarding the object of brokerage.
(Article 2 subparag. 1 and Article 32(1)2 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act). (2) There is no dispute that the Plaintiff was requested to sell the real estate of this case.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff arranged the instant real estate sales contract only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and thus, there is no claim for brokerage commission related to the instant real estate sales. Rather, the Defendant added the purport of the entire pleadings to the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 1.