logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.12 2018나26405
중개수수료
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. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent operating “D” in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. Defendant B, among the 1st floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-ground buildings, was operating approximately 19 square meters (Fho Lake, hereinafter “the instant commercial building”) in the name of “G,” and requested a neighboring real estate intermediary office, including the Plaintiff, to mediate the transfer of the right of lease on the instant commercial building.

C. On May 4, 2017, Defendant C introduced the instant commercial building from the Plaintiff and received mobile phone text messages from the “E cultural products hall” as to its location while displaying the commercial building necessary for the operation of clothes.

On May 9, 2017, Defendant C entered into a premium contract with Defendant B to transfer all business facilities, goodwill, etc. of the instant commercial building to KRW 75,00,000 for premium (hereinafter “the premium contract of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that, within the scope of KRW 70,00,000 to KRW 80,000,000, the Plaintiff arranged the conclusion of the instant premium contract among the Defendants, by introducing the instant commercial building to Defendant C upon receiving a request for mediation of transfer of the right to lease of the instant commercial building from Defendant B, and explaining the deposit, monthly rent, premium, business district, etc.

Nevertheless, Defendant C excluded the Plaintiff and entered into the instant premium contract directly with Defendant B, and the Defendants jointly and severally have a duty to pay KRW 10,980,000 to the Plaintiff, who actually engaged in brokerage activities, the aggregate amount of statutory brokerage commission equivalent to 0.9% of the transaction value.

3. The broker involved in the act of real estate brokerage shall arrange the sale, exchange, lease and other acts concerning the acquisition, loss and transfer of rights between the parties to the transaction regarding the object of brokerage.

arrow