2016 grouped 245312 Agreements

○ Kim

Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

1. ○○;

Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Young-dong 142 Street

Law Firm Jeong & Partners, Attorneys Lee Dong-hee et al.

2. Kim○-○

3. Gamb○ (before opening: Gamb○).

Defendant 2 and 3's address 151, Gangnam-gu, Seoul High-ro 151

Defendant 2 and 3’s Attorney Jeong Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

December 9, 2016

December 23, 2016

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant Lee ○, ○○, and Park ○○, jointly paid 8,00,000 won, and 15% per annum from August 23, 2016 to December 23, 2016, and 200 won per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 50% is borne by the Plaintiff, 50% is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Defendant Lee ○○, Inc., jointly with the Plaintiff, KRW 16,830,00, KRW 00, and KRW 16,830,000.

In this regard, the amount of money calculated at the rate of 15% per annum after the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint shall be paid.

On March 21, 2016, Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○ (instant apartment), Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, 805, where he/she owned, entered into a contract to sell to Defendant Kim○○ for KRW 1,870,00,000 (the instant sales contract) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 10, 2016, there is no dispute between the parties.

The Plaintiff asserts that, with respect to the apartment of this case, the Defendants were obligated to pay brokerage fees to the Plaintiff because they did not engage in the actual brokerage, failed to adjust the sales price and the delivery time, and the Defendants concluded the sales contract of this case with each of the mediation activities, such as the purchase price and the time of delivery (the time of lessee’s relocation). However, the Defendants concluded the sales contract of this case with the exclusion of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that they were not obliged to pay brokerage fees to the Plaintiff. The Defendants did not engage in the actual brokerage activities, failed to adjust the sales price and the delivery time, and concluded the sales contract of this case with other intermediaries, and thus, they did not have any obligation to pay brokerage fees to the Plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap 1 through 6, this case's apartment sales brokerage from 2008 to the plaintiff, and defendant Park ○○, who resided in the same Dong as the apartment of this case, requested the plaintiff in 2014 to purchase and sell the apartment of this case's apartment of this case, and the plaintiff's introduction in 2014 to cut off the sales price, etc., and the defendant Park ○○, upon requesting the plaintiff to purchase and sell the apartment of this case's apartment of this case, failed to adjust the terms and conditions of the purchase price and delivery time among the defendants by requesting the plaintiff to mediate the purchase price of this case's apartment of this case's apartment of this case to the plaintiff around January 2016. This case's ○○○ requested that the plaintiff enter into a sales contract of this case's 1,880,000,000,000 won with the purchase price and the date of its withdrawal on July 16, 2016.

In full view of the above facts, the sales contract of this case shall be deemed to have been actually concluded through the plaintiff's brokerage act. (The entries in Eul 1-1, and 2 are insufficient to back the contract) The defendants prevented the plaintiff from participating in the preparation of the contract by the defendants. Thus, the defendants (in light of the facts acknowledged earlier, defendant Park Jong-○ shall be deemed to have commissioned the mediation on behalf of the defendant Kim○○) are obligated to pay brokerage commission corresponding to the plaintiff's brokerage act. The plaintiff is seeking a payment of 16,830,000 won multiplied by 9% of the purchase price of this case by 16,830,000 won, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there was such brokerage commission agreement only with the entries in Gap 1 and 4, and the sales price of this case, the purchase price of this case, the plaintiff's position at the time of delivery of the apartment of this case has not been successful as a whole, the seller and the purchaser shall be determined as 800,000 won, respectively.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to jointly pay KRW 8,00,000, KRW 000, and KRW 8,000, KRW 000, and KRW 00 to the Plaintiff.

Judges Yellow-Jin Constitution