logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.22 2015가단5212254
부동산중개수수료 청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On October 2014, the purport of the cause of the claim was that the Plaintiff, as a real estate broker, entrusted the Defendant with a brokerage of the sale of a building having investment value, and attempted to arrange the Defendant for the remainder of the building with the Defendant and the Jeju Development Department (hereinafter “instant real estate”), to specify the building site 1,526.5 square meters and the second floor of the land located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 11, 288-23, which is owned by the Jeju Development Limited Company (hereinafter “the Jeju Development”).

During that period, the Defendant, on January 2, 2015, excluded the Plaintiff from the obligation to pay brokerage commission and entered into a sales contract on the instant real estate development and the instant real estate in order to divert part of the sales price.

Thus, this constitutes a case where the act of brokerage was interrupted due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff even though the plaintiff served as a critical part of the establishment of the above sales contract, and thus, the plaintiff can claim a brokerage commission corresponding to the degree of

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 67.5 billion (= KRW 7.5 billion x 0.9% x 0.9%) applying the brokerage fee rate of KRW 0.9% to the Defendant at the time of the act of brokerage.

2. The judgment broker may claim a payment of brokerage commission only when a contract has been concluded between the client and the other party by his/her own act of brokerage, and even if the broker has made an endeavor as a broker, as long as the contract has not been concluded by his/her act of brokerage, the broker shall not claim a brokerage commission equivalent to the ratio

However, even though the contract has been almost at the same stage due to the act of brokerage of the broker, the client and the other party conspired with each other to avoid the brokerage commission and concluded a direct contract without excluding the broker.

or the broker has played a critical role in the formation of the contract.

arrow