beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff concluded a sales agency contract with Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”); (b) and (c) 98 households among the 209 households, including the 16.7% of the total sales amount.
The Defendant Company received KRW 7,862,870,00 in total of the sale price of the apartment of this case and the site ownership purchase price of this case. As such, the remaining KRW 6,549,770,710 shall be refunded to the Plaintiff after deducting KRW 1,313,09,290 from the total of KRW 16.7%. However, the remaining KRW 2,049,770,710 shall be paid to the Plaintiff.
Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant Company’s obligation under the above sales agency contract. As such, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the said KRW 2,049,770,710 to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment, the Defendants first claim for payment of KRW 90,000,000 and damages for delay.
B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the witness F’s testimony is difficult to believe, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, as to the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales agency contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to pay the sales commission at 16.7% of the total sales amount for 98 households out of the apartment of this case.
Rather, according to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the apartment of this case was about 15 years since the new construction of the apartment of this case, but failed to undergo a pre-use inspection, and there were many households who became aware of the sale due to provisional attachment, mortgage, etc., provisional attachment and mortgage establishment. The defendant company organized the legal relationship such as provisional attachment, etc. with respect to the apartment of this case, and decided to sell 98 households after completion inspection. On November 28, 2014, the plaintiff and the defendant company decided to sell the 98 units after completion inspection.