beta
Text
1. The term of the sales contract concluded on June 13, 2015 between the Plaintiff C and the Defendant with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list.
Reasons
Basic Facts
Plaintiff
A and B are licensed real estate agents engaged in real estate brokerage business and sales agency business, and the defendant is a person who runs the business of newly constructing and selling the electric house called “F” (hereinafter referred to as “instant house”) in Gwangju City E (hereinafter referred to as “instant business”).
Plaintiff
C is a person who purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) from the Defendant.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A No. 13, and Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim for the entire pleadings
A. On January 2014, Plaintiff A’s assertion that Plaintiff A owns a stock company G (hereinafter “G”) with Defendant around January 201, 201, hereinafter referred to as “the primary project site for the Plaintiff’s assertion” in the sum of H, I, J, K forest, and total 17951 square meters or less between the Defendant and the Defendant.
(2) In order to mediate the sale price (7,059,00,000 won) of the sales price (7,059,000 won), 0.9% of the sales price is to be paid as a brokerage commission. According to this, the mediation commission to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff A is 63,531,000 won (=7,059,0000 won x 0.9%), but the Defendant did not pay the remainder by paying only 46,00,000 won among them. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff a brokerage commission of KRW 17,531,000 (=63,531,000) - 46,000,000 won.
B. As alleged by the Plaintiff A, in light of the following circumstances, as to whether a mediation contract has been concluded to pay a brokerage commission of 0.9% of the sales price in return for mediating the sale and purchase of the primary business site between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant, each of the descriptions in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Articles 1 and 2 is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff A's claim is without merit.
(1) The name of a plaintiff A entered in a sales contract for the primary project site dated January 7, 2014.