beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,950,000 as well as 20% per annum from December 16, 2014 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The defendant is a licensed real estate agent who has operated the "D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office" in Busan Si/Gun C.
B. On May 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to sell 4,884 square meters of 5,770 square meters of forest land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-si to E as a broker (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant on May 9, 2014.
【Identification Evidence Evidence Evidence Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The purpose of the former Licensed Real Estate Agents’ Business Affairs and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act is to promote the convenience of the people’s lives by restricting the effects of private law on the part exceeding the prescribed limit among the terms of the real estate brokerage commission agreement. Thus, the part of the so-called mandatory provision which constitutes the so-called mandatory provision and is null and void.
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Da32159 Decided December 20, 2007, etc.). We examine this case.
The former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014; Act No. 12374, Jul. 29, 2014) that was applied at the time of the instant sales contract (amended by the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act) and its Enforcement Rule provide that the fees which a broker may receive as a broker of an object other than a house, such as the instant sales contract, shall not exceed 9/1,000 of the transaction amount. Thus, the maximum limit of the commission for brokerage of the instant sales contract is 4,050,000 (= sales amount of 450,000,000 x 00 x 09). Ultimately, the amount exceeding the above maximum limit constitutes partial invalidation.
Therefore, the Defendant’s unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 5,950,00,000, which constitutes the above invalidation, and as to this, it is obvious that it is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, from December 16, 2014 to December 2015.