logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단9503
판결금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from November 1, 2007 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence No. 2, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking damages against the defendant et al. with the Cheongju District Court on the ground that the plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, and the defendant's brokerage office, worked as the office around 2007, incurred damages to the plaintiff (2007DaDa4301) in the course of mediating the plaintiff's land purchase and sale (the plaintiff was paid KRW 50 million as of September 17, 2007 to the plaintiff as of October 31, 2007, but if the above amount is not paid to the plaintiff by the above payment date, the court below did not make a decision to recommend the settlement of this case to pay damages calculated at a rate of 20% per annum from the day following the above payment date to the day of full payment (hereinafter "reconciliation recommendation of this case"), but all of the plaintiff, defendant C and the defendant did not make a decision to recommend the settlement of this case to the plaintiff as of this case.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above 50 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 1, 2007 to the day of full payment for the purpose of extending the extinctive prescription period for the claims confirmed by the decision of recommending reconciliation of this case, barring any special circumstances.

2. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff was paid full compensation from the damage guarantee insurance company of the defendant's subscription for the amount of money in accordance with the decision of recommending the settlement of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the defendant'

3. Conclusion.

arrow