beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted from the Defendant that he was commissioned by the Defendant to mediate the sale of the B factory site B 10,894 square meters and the above ground factories, offices, etc. (hereinafter “instant real estate”), posted the said real estate in the living information site and the distribution information on the Internet, installed a banner in the factory, and introduced the instant real estate to the head of Jungsan-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the head of Jungsan-si”) to guide the site and explain the terms and conditions of the sale.
Therefore, even though the Plaintiff played a critical role in the establishment of the sales contract between the Defendant and the head of the party concerned with regard to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff was suspended from engaging in the preparation of the final contract due to a cause for which the Plaintiff was not responsible, and thus, was entitled to claim a brokerage commission against the Defendant in light of the purport of Article 686(3) of the Civil Act
2. The act of real estate brokerage as a broker mediates the transaction, exchange, lease, and other acts concerning the acquisition, loss, and modification of rights between the parties to the transaction regarding the object of brokerage, and in principle, the broker may claim a commission to the broker only after the conclusion of the contract, such as the preparation of the contract concerning the object of brokerage, is completed.
According to the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 10, 11 (including paper numbers), and the witness Eul's testimony and the whole purport of arguments, the plaintiff was requested to mediate the sale of the real estate of this case by the defendant, and was in custody of the keys of the above real estate, the plaintiff published the above real estate in the daily information paper and the Internet, and installed a banner in the factory, and the plaintiff was recognized as having introduced the internal string through the representative E of the DNA representative and gave guidance to the employees of the regular string and responded to the terms of the sale.
However, each entry in the evidence of Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7;