(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.09.26 2019나10

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.09.26 2019나10

부동산중개수수료

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent who runs the real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “C Licensed Real Estate Agents,” and the Defendant becomes aware of in the educational institute like the Plaintiff while conducting the examination of licensed real estate agents.

B. On March 27, 2017, the Defendant concluded, as the Plaintiff’s broker, a sales contract for the purchase of the land and building E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in order to determine the purchase price of KRW 1,280,000,000, and the remainder payment date as of April 28, 2017 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff prepared a confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage and received the Defendant’s signature and seal. The said explanatory note entered the brokerage fee of KRW 11,520,00 (Calculation: KRW 1,280,000 x 0.9%).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 11,520,000 as a brokerage fee as stated in the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage prepared and delivered at the time of conclusion of the instant sales contract.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 11,520,000 won and damages for delay.

B. Defendant 1) did not agree to determine a brokerage commission of KRW 11,520,00, and the Plaintiff unilaterally entered in the statement. 2) At the time of the mediation of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff, “only KRW 200,000 out of the sales price, and the remainder shall be paid as the rental deposit by leasing the instant real estate,” and deceiving the Defendant by presenting the anticipated rental deposit, etc. of the instant real estate to the Defendant. In fact, the Defendant did not enter into a lease contract as proposed by the Plaintiff, thereby incurring considerable damage to the Defendant, which would

In addition, due to the defect in the real estate of this case, the defendant suffered damages.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.09 2018나67970

-서울행정법원 2015.11.05 2015구합6897

-인천지방법원 2021.04.20 2020가단238232

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.10 2019나4648

-서울동부지방법원 2016.03.18 2015나6458