(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.10.21 2014나19759

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.10.21 2014나19759

중개수수료

Text

1. All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the counterclaim filed in the trial are dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal; and

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, a real estate broker, entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with B as between June 3, 2014, under which the Defendant, as the broker of the Plaintiff, entered into between B and B, the terms of the lease deposit of KRW 30,000,000 (a contract deposit of KRW 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 on the day of the contract, shall be paid on the day of the contract) and the remainder of the contract, from July 10, 2014 to July 10, 2016 (hereinafter “24 months”); and the fact that the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,430,00 as a commission for the said intermediary act, or that the entire purport of pleading can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of evidence as stated in subparagraph 1.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,430,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 22, 2014 to the date of full payment after the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, as the Plaintiff seeks.

2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion and counterclaim

A. On July 10, 2014, the delivery date stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and July 15, 2014, the date of delivery, which was July 10, 2014, the gist of the Defendant’s assertion and counterclaim claim B, the instant lease agreement was cancelled because the Plaintiff did not deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the instant real estate was not delivered on the delivery date at the time of brokerage, and did not notify the Defendant of such fact. Thus, the instant lease agreement was rescinded by the Plaintiff’s intention or negligence, and the Defendant was not obliged to pay brokerage fees to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, and the Defendant was inevitable due to the cancellation

참조조문

-공인중개사법 제32조 제1항

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2019.02.01 2018가단57504

-창원지방법원 2017.06.22 2016가단104947

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.09.24 2015가합5010

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.01.12 2015가단25302

-부산지방법원동부지원 2017.06.28 2016가단215686