(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.07.16 2019나200301

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) 의정부지방법원 2019.07.16 2019나200301

중개수수료부당이득금반환 등

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 assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff was requested by the custodian E acting for D, the owner of the building on the land outside Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul and five lots (hereinafter “instant building”); and (b) introduced the instant building to G employees of F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “F”), which found the building to be leased at the time; (c) but the Defendant arranged that F and D enter into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the plaintiff filed an application for mediation to pay brokerage fees, and as a result, the plaintiff received 3.3 million won (including value-added tax) and 500,000 won from F, respectively.

As such, since the Plaintiff was acting as a broker for the conclusion of a lease agreement between F and D, the Defendant should return 9.6 million won remaining after deducting the Plaintiff’s above three million won (excluding value-added tax) from the brokerage commission to be paid by the said company, as unjust enrichment, to the Plaintiff.

B. In full view of the written evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, as a whole, D, the owner of the instant building, concluded an exclusive brokerage contract with the Defendant on June 1, 2017 by requesting brokerage as to the lease of the instant building to the Defendant, and the fact that D and F concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on October 19, 2017 as the Defendant’s brokerage.

In light of the above facts, even if the defendant brokerage and received brokerage fees from D, etc. in the course of the lease agreement on the building of this case between D and F according to the exclusive brokerage contract with D, it is difficult to view that the defendant took advantage of the plaintiff without any legal ground, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to KRW 9.60,000 in the difference of brokerage fees.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2015.06.10 2014가단36309

-전주지방법원 2021.02.05 2019가단21790

-대전지방법원 2020.11.19 2019나5442

-서울동부지방법원 2019.05.22 2018나3627

-인천지방법원 2015.09.15 2014가단41345