(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.05.13 2015나34244

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.05.13 2015나34244

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. In full view of Gap evidence No. 1-1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of all the arguments, the plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, arranged the lease contract with the lessee, the lessor, the lessor, the lessor, the lease lease deposit of KRW 195,00,000 (payment on the day of the contract), and the down payment of KRW 585,00,000,000 for the remainder payment on the day of the contract, and received a receipt from the lessor. On the other hand, as to the brokerage commission of the above lease, it is not acknowledged that the transaction amount of KRW 30,000,000 multiplied by the fee rate of KRW 0.3% by the transaction amount of KRW 195,00 (195,000,000 x 5,000,000).

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who has arranged the lease contract the amounting to 585,000 won of brokerage commission and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 12, 2015 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, to the day of complete payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim on the premise of the completion of mediation is groundless, since the plaintiff did not prepare and deliver a lease agreement and a description confirming the object of brokerage to the defendant.

However, as long as the lease contract is a contract with a marbitrous nature, the issue of whether to issue a contract or an explanatory note verifying the object of brokerage is no obstacle to the establishment of the lease contract, and as long as such a lease contract is concluded by an intermediary act, the right to claim a brokerage commission arises. As seen earlier, the contract that the plaintiff arranged is the principal contract, not the contract, but the principal contract itself, and furthermore, the facts

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2020.01.16 2018나6977

-서울서부지방법원 2017.03.09 2016가단216277

-부산지방법원 2021.04.07 2020나48512

-의정부지방법원 2015.10.16 2015나8590