(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.02.07 2017나2028021

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) 서울고등법원 2018.02.07 2017나2028021

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant, B, and D for payment of KRW 205,000,000 and damages for delay, jointly and severally, and the court of first instance dismissed all the Plaintiff’s claim.

Therefore, since only the plaintiff appealed against part of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part on which the plaintiff appealed in the judgment of the first instance.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as stated in the following paragraph (3) (Provided, That the part concerning claims against Codefendant B and D in the first instance trial is excluded) and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act are cited.

3. Parts to be dried;

(a) Each “Defendant C” of not more than Grade 9 of the judgment of the first instance court not more than Grade 2, with each “Defendant C”, and each “Defendant B” and “Defendant Company”, with each “A” and “B” of each “Defendant D”.

B. Of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, Paragraph 2 of this Article shall be dismissed as follows.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant participated in brokerage as a broker under the contract between the Plaintiff and the stock company for the transfer of the right of lease of this case.

However, since the defendant is disqualified as an intermediary, such intermediary act is invalid in violation of Article 48 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.

However, since the plaintiff paid 100,000,000 won to the defendant on March 3, 2011 to the defendant as compensation for the above brokerage act, the defendant received this without any legal ground and thus shall return it to the defendant as unjust enrichment.

B. Even if the defendant's act of brokerage is valid

Even if the above 100,000,000 won exceeds the limits prescribed by law (in this case, 19,800,000 won) shall be refunded.

(c)the above KRW 100,000,000 for household affairs, not for brokerage, but for premium.

참조조문

-공인중개사법 제48조

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.04.03 2014나21771

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.14 2016가단144865

-서울고등법원 2020.10.29 2019나2040612

-수원지방법원 2019.02.14 2018나6867

-서울고등법원 2017.05.30 2016나2081230