(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.10.30 2019나21981

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) 서울동부지방법원 2019.10.30 2019나21981

중개수수료

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant (Counterclaim) against the main lawsuit exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 11, 2018, the Defendant entered into a contract to purchase D’s KRW 1,500,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the land and building Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant real estate”) by the broker of the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on February 28, 2018.

B. Around that time, the Defendant paid 6,000,000 won to the Plaintiff. Around March 5, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail stating that the Plaintiff would pay 7,50,000 won (=13,500,000 won - 6,000 won) to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid brokerage fee of KRW 7,500,000 (=13,500,000 won = 13,500,000 = the sale price of KRW 1,50,000 x the upper limit of the brokerage commission rate of KRW 0.9% - the fixed payment of KRW 6,00,000) under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and damages for delay.

B. According to the statement in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3 of the sales contract of this case, "13,500,000 won" is stated in the third page of the sales contract of this case, and the buyer's representative column of the same side is deemed to have affixed a seal to the defendant's employee E's signature and the defendant's seal. However, according to the whole purport of Gap's statement and oral argument, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff affixed the above seal to the above E's signature and seal at the time of the sales contract of this case, and there was no special agreement between the plaintiff and the above E or the defendant on the brokerage remuneration under the sales contract of this case. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the brokerage remuneration of this case as KRW 13,50,000, and there is no other evidence to

Meanwhile, according to Article 32 (1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, a practicing licensed real estate agent is about brokerage business.

참조조문

-공인중개사법 제32조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2019.10.23 2019나20735

-창원지방법원 2019.11.01 2019노992

-서울행정법원 2015.07.03 2015구단52411

-수원지방법원 2021.02.10 2020나70281

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.26 2016나21482