beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff against the Defendant regarding the apartment sales contract of December 20, 2016 between the Plaintiff, C, D, and E.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 12, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife entered into a sales contract with D and E on one-half shares of each of the Plaintiff’s husband and wife with respect to G apartmentH on one parcel of land outside the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On December 20, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife entered into the sales contract with D and E with respect to one-half shares, and completed the entire registration of transfer of each share under the said sales contract.
B. Under the apartment sales contract (Evidence No. 1) prepared at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, offered a sales brokerage for the Plaintiff and C, and stated that the brokerage commission is 4.3 million won.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The plaintiff did not request the mediation of the sales contract of this case to the defendant, and clearly delivered to the defendant his/her intent not to conclude the contract when the defendant demands the mediation commission at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that there is no obligation to pay the mediation commission to the defendant in relation to the sales contract of this case.
However, as long as it is recognized as the authenticity of the formation of a disposal document, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent by its content, and shall not reject the contents without the explanation of the reasons that it is difficult to believe it (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu12759,12766, Nov. 27, 1990). According to the evidence No. 1, Eul, as the seller, as the seller, D, and E, as the buyer, as the broker of the buyer, the defendant prepared the apartment sales contract (Evidence No. 1) with I as the seller, as the broker of the buyer, and as the broker of the buyer, it can be recognized that the brokerage remuneration of the above contract was stated as the cause of 4.3 million won, and there is no counter-proof.