(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.29 2018가단106293

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) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.29 2018가단106293

용역비

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The fact that there is no dispute between the parties to the above procedure of compulsory auction by Seoul Northern District Court (Appointed Party), the defendant (Appointed Party), the appointed party B, and the third party to the above procedure of registration of transfer of the ownership of each of the above-mentioned land after winning a contract on February 3, 2017 and completing the procedure of registration of transfer of the ownership of each of the above-mentioned land among the 490.91 square meters shares of the 1364 square meters store in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and the 2,862,00 equity shares of the 1,862,241 square meters, and the 1386.45 square meters in the 1,301.65 square meters in the 490.91 square meters in the 490.91 square meters store in the 1,496.321 square meters in the 201.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff recommended the said land and buildings upon the request of G, who is the representative of the Defendant (Appointed Party), the appointed party B, and C (hereinafter the Defendant et al.) to recommend the auction goods.

The plaintiff attempted to purchase shares by contact seven of 78 co-owners, visited the site and identified the current status of tenants, right holders, etc., and examined the potential risk factors after the successful bid and reported them to G.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with G to receive 2% of the appraisal price at the time of winning a contract with G, and the Defendant, etc. agreed to the effect that G’s defect would be the same.

Therefore, the defendant et al. is obligated to pay 4 million won which does not reach 1% of the appraisal price to the plaintiff as the service cost.

B. Determination of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3-2 and testimony by witness G are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2019.06.27 2018나6651

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.20 2015가합330

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.10 2015가단51204

-인천지방법원 2016.03.10 2015가합58613

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.15 2017가단5155997