(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.10.23 2019나20735

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 2019.10.23 2019나20735

용역비

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. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 14, 2018, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, with respect to the Seongdong-gu Seoul building and D, setting the lease deposit of KRW 660,000,000 (the remaining payment date: April 17, 2018) and the lease term from April 17, 2018 to April 16, 2020 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On April 23, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a content-certified mail demanding payment of KRW 5,808,000 to the Defendant of the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is obligated to act as a broker while mediating the lease contract of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the commission fee of 5,808,000 won (=the above 660,000,000 won x the upper limit of the commission commission rate of 0.8% under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes x value-added tax 1.1) and damages for delay.

B. According to Gap's evidence No. 1, the lower part of the instant lease agreement stated "5,808,000 won (including additional 528,000 won)" as the lower part of "5,808,000 won (including additional 528,000 won)", and the lower part of the lease agreement is recognized as having the defendant's name and seal, but according to Gap's overall purport of entry and pleading, the plaintiff puts the defendant's seal on the front part of the defendant's name at the time of the instant lease agreement, and there is no specific agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as to brokerage fees under the instant lease agreement. In full view of this, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff was authorized to place the defendant's seal on the part of the instant lease agreement of KRW 5,808,00,000, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the brokerage fees are five thousand eight thousand won.

However, according to Article 32 (1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.

참조조문

-공인중개사법 제32조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2019.10.30 2019나21981

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.09 2018나67970

-수원지방법원 2021.02.10 2020나70281

-창원지방법원마산지원 2017.11.08 2017가단102177