beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant requested the Plaintiff, who runs the real estate brokerage business with the trade name “D” in the land-based commercial building in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, to mediate the lease contract with respect to the E, 301 Dong 3203 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant.
B. On March 14, 2014, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with F as the Plaintiff’s broker, setting the lease term (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) between F and F, with the following terms: (a) KRW 750 million for the lease deposit for the instant apartment (payment of KRW 75 million for the contract payment; and (b) the remainder payment of KRW 675 million for the contract payment; and (c) April 16, 2014 for the term of the lease; and (d) from April 16, 2014 to April 15, 2016, the lessee agreed to the lessee to consent to the lessee’s loan for the lease deposit.
C. The Defendant agreed to pay 1.3 million won to the Plaintiff with the brokerage commission of the instant lease agreement.
F was planning to obtain a loan from a lease fund and pay part of the remainder of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, but the employees of the new bank, which received an application for a lease loan from F, called the Defendant to obtain consent to the establishment of a pledge on the claim to return the lease deposit (if the lease deposit exceeds KRW 600 million, it is impossible to grant a general lease loan and it is possible to grant a loan only when the claim to return the lease deposit is set up). The Defendant refused to give consent with the purport that “Although the Defendant consented to a loan from a lease fund, there was no agreement to set up a pledge on the claim to return the lease deposit.”
E. Until April 16, 2014, the remainder payment date of the lease deposit of this case, the F and the Defendant did not resolve the problem regarding the loan of the lease fund, and F failed to pay the remainder to the Defendant. Upon the lapse of the remainder payment date, the lease contract of this case provides a loan of the lease fund from the bank.