logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.07.10 2017나11162
중개수수료
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. After mediating the sale and purchase of marina shops operated by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, while receiving KRW 20 million as a commission, decided to refund the brokerage commission when the sales contract is terminated according to the buyer’s intent.

However, since the buyer D cancels the above sales contract, it is necessary to refund the fee of KRW 20 million and damages for delay.

B. On November 1, 2017, the Defendant did not return the agreement to the Plaintiff that “it shall return KRW 10 million, out of KRW 20 million paid, to D each month from November 2017 to February 2018.”

C. Since the Defendant deceptioned D to be well operated and arranged a sales contract, it should refund the fee of KRW 20 million.

2. Determination

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 with respect to a contract for the return of brokerage commission upon the cancellation of a sales contract, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D with Yeonsu-gu Incheon E, Yeonsu-gu, and 401 and 402 with "F" (hereinafter "the instant sales contract") to sell KRW 110 million to the defendant around October 31, 2016, and it is recognized that the plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the defendant around October 31, 2016.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant entered into an agreement to refund the fees that the Defendant received upon the rescission of the instant sales contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, although the Plaintiff claims the return of the commission to the Defendant on the premise that D had rescinded the instant sales contract, there is no evidence to prove that D had rescinded the instant sales contract.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(b)a return agreement of KRW 10 million.

arrow