beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the money for the preliminary claim that the Plaintiff added to the Defendant B at the trial.
Reasons
1. Defendant B and C, the intermediary assistant of “E Licensed Real Estate Agent”, around May 2014, requested that the buyer of the HJ large 441 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the building on the ground thereof (hereinafter “land and buildings”) be found at the time of odoxing from G operating the F Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Office at the end of May, 2014, introduce the Plaintiff’s husband I the instant real estate.
As to the instant real estate, on June 2, 2014, the seller entered into a sales contract with Defendant D, the buyer, and Nonparty 1,263,000,000, and the broker G (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Of the sales price, KRW 120,000,000, the sales contract was paid for the remainder of KRW 1,143,000,000 as of August 5, 2014.
In the instant sales contract, “the buyer may change at the time of the transfer of ownership, and the seller agrees without objection (Paragraph 2), and the contract is null and void at the time of the remainder payment on the balance payment date, and the down payment shall be deemed to be a penalty (Paragraph 3).”
On June 3, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 120,000,000 to Defendant D the down payment of the instant sales contract, and paid KRW 1,000,000 to Defendant B as the intermediary fee for the instant sales contract.
Defendant D did not receive any balance on the payment date of the remainder under the instant sales contract, and around September 25, 2014, Defendant D forfeited the down payment to the Plaintiff as penalty according to the terms and conditions of the instant sales contract, and sent the certificate of content that the sales contract was rescinded.
Defendant B made a false statement on April 7, 2016 that “Defendant B would pay I the money in the name of the commission, so he would deliver it to G, if he would deliver it to G, 30 million won, since he would pay I the money in the name of the commission.” However, there was no fact that G requested Defendant B through Defendant B to pay I the money in the name of the commission, and Defendant B would reduce the entire amount of KRW 30 million to G.