beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a company that performs the sales agency business of F stores in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and E, which was implemented by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and the Plaintiff is a company that performs the sales agency business of F stores in Gangseo-gu and E, and the Plaintiff is a company that performs the sales agency business of G, H, and I as a group with G, H, and I, and
B. On December 29, 2015, J concluded a sales contract in which the said shopping mall K (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) was sold to KRW 1,383,100,000 due to the brokerage of G (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
C. On March 14, 2016, J made a full payment of the down payment for the instant sales contract to C, and completed a written statement for an intermediate payment loan, and on February 20, 2017, registered the ownership transfer of the instant commercial building.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, Eul's evidence 3, Eul's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The instant sales contract was concluded due to the Plaintiff’s brokerage, and J paid the down payment, and the intermediate payment was also loaned.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 17,288,750 won equivalent to 1.25% of the sales price of this case with the sales price of this case as sales agency fee and damages for delay.
B. In the preparatory document dated November 15, 2017, the Defendant stated that “G shall make an illegal pre-sale contract and engage in the maintenance of the contract, so even if the fee is recognized, the fee shall be reduced” and “the Defendant shall make a claim that the overdue interest 7,298,300 won paid by the Plaintiff should be deducted in relation to the instant pre-sale contract,” but there was no such assertion against the Plaintiff in the instant case.
1) The Plaintiff is not an employee belonging to the Defendant, and M (alias: N) who is the head of the sales agency service contract (chief).