(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.04.28 2015나897

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) 서울남부지방법원 2016.04.28 2015나897

분양대행용역계약보증금반환 등

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 39,179,870 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from February 27, 2014 to April 28, 2016.

Reasons

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of the down payment, the sales agency fee, and the cost of the field advance execution against the Defendant. The court of first instance accepted the claim for the refund of the down payment and the sales agency fee, and dismissed the claim for the cost of the field advance execution.

Since the defendant appealed against this, the object of this Court's adjudication is limited to the return of the down payment and the claim of the sales agency fee.

2. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 6, as well as in Eul evidence Nos. 4-2, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

On April 2, 2010, Seohee Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Shee Construction”) concluded a sales agency contract with the Defendant for the sales of the store in this case, and entrusted the Defendant with the sales of the shop in this case, on March 4, 2011, the Defendant entered into a sales agency contract with the Plaintiff to the effect that “if the sales price is at least 50%, the sales price shall be at least 3.5%, and the sales price shall be at least 50%, the sales price shall be at least 50%,” and the sales agency contract shall be returned to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant sales agency contract”). The sales agency contract was concluded with the Plaintiff for the sales of the shops in this case with the purport that “if the sales price is at least 50%, the sales price shall be at least 50%, the sales price shall be at least 6.5%, and the Plaintiff shall be paid the remainder of the sales price, 300,500 won, excluding the sales price directly sold by the Defendant.

B. However, until May 2012, the Plaintiff succeeded to the sale of only 22 stores, such as the details of the sale in lots and the list of the purchase in lots, among 66 stores subject to the contract of the purchase in this case.

On the other hand, the defendant on May 11, 2012.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.10.05 2018고합37 (1)

-서울동부지방법원 2014.08.12 2013가합102556

-광주지방법원 2016.08.25 2015가합59216

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.07.24 2018고합37

-부산지방법원 2019.07.17 2018가합46656