beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased approximately KRW 100 square meters of co-ownership among the co-ownership share of approximately 3226 square meters in leisure-si C, 2971 square meters as a result of the Defendant’s sales brokerage (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s assertion”) and approximately KRW 100 of co-ownership share of approximately 3226 square meters in D. (hereinafter “No. 2”).
However, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 140,000 per square day, and KRW 200,000 per square day, and KRW 250,000 per square day, and KRW 250,000 per square day, as if the price of KRW 60,000 per square day is actual land price, the Defendant received KRW 45,00,000 for the first trading agent of the land and KRW 33,00 for the second trading agent, and thereafter acquired unjust enrichment of KRW 12,00 for the remaining 12,00,000 for the first trading agent.
The defendant shall return the above unjust enrichment amounting to 12,00,000 won to the plaintiff.
2. According to each of the records of the judgment Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number of branch numbers), the defendant, while selling the land No. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff, has left about KRW 10,00 per square year while mediating the sale of the land No. 1 and 2 to the plaintiff, the fact that the defendant in fact has left about KRW 50,000 per square year. However, in full view of the purport of the entries and arguments in No. 2, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the plaintiff by notifying the plaintiff of false market price of each of the above land, etc., and the defendant was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution on or around Dec. 31, 2015, the defendant was not subject to the disposition of non-prosecution, pursuing each of the interests of the plaintiff, and the defendant cannot be deemed to bear the obligation of the defendant to notify the plaintiff of the actual price of the land No. 1 and No. 2. Accordingly, according to the facts acknowledged earlier or evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone, the plaintiff's assertion is rejected.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the court of first instance shall be dismissed.