(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.11.18 2015나4056

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) 서울동부지방법원 2015.11.18 2015나4056

중개수수료

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. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1-1 through 9 of the evidence Nos. 1, C, the Defendant’s agent, may request the Plaintiff to mediate the lease contract. On January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, and the Defendant and the lessee agreed on the lease contract Nos. 280,000,000 won (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with respect to the lessor E and 201 due to the joint brokerage between the Plaintiff and D, the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, and the lessee, with respect to the lease contract No. 350,000,000,000 won (hereinafter “the lease contract of this case”) from February 27, 2015, and on the same day, the lessee F paid the contract deposit of 35,000,000 won to the Defendant’s agent.

B. As such, inasmuch as the instant lease contract was concluded by the Plaintiff’s broker who requested brokerage, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 2,800,000 won of the contract brokerage commission and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 1, 2015 to the day following the day of complete payment, which is the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not properly explain the special agreement under the instant lease agreement, which was to repay the secured obligation of the right to collateral security established on the instant leased object as part of the remainder of the deposit to the lessee and cancel the said lease agreement, and that the lessee did not properly perform the obligation to pay the remainder on the outstanding payment date, and that the instant lease agreement was cancelled due to the Plaintiff’s negligence without properly explaining the contents of the instant lease agreement, and thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the brokerage commission.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2020.08.12 2019나318261

-울산지방법원 2020.10.29 2020가단451

-서울동부지방법원 2018.08.22 2017나4616

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.13 2016나3231

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.04 2014가단5351237