(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.23 2014가단5139116

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.23 2014가단5139116

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion was found in the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City where the plaintiff works and asked about the sales agency fees, and the plaintiff respondeded to the purport that the representative director E was aware of the sales agency fees per household 5 million won. The sales agency agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and thereafter, the plaintiff sold 10 loans owned by the defendant to the Folc Association.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff KRW 50 million the sales agency fee of KRW 10,000,000.

There was no sales agency agreement between the interpreter, the plaintiff and the defendant;

However, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the statutory brokerage commission to the plaintiff, since at least the plaintiff has mediated the sale and purchase of 10 loans owned by the defendant.

2. According to the records of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the statement of witness G, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant, on December 13, 2013, upon entering into a sales agency contract with the non-party H and the plaintiff for the loan alleged to have been sold by him/her, he/she prepared a sales agency contract, such as the certificate No. 2, and on January 15, 2014, whether the G, which arranged the FJ meeting, borrowed the loan owned by the defendant to the plaintiff as the company house of the church. On January 15, 2014, the plaintiff introduced the loan to G to the defendant, and delivered the contents thereof to G, the FJ meeting purchased 10 bonds from the defendant, and paid 9 million won to G with the brokerage commission.

However, even if the facts acknowledged earlier, including the witness G’s statement that he became aware of the loan owned by the Plaintiff and all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the Defendant concluded a sales agency agreement with the Plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the commission of brokerage of its own lending, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's assertion based on an agency or intermediary agreement is without merit.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.11.18 2015고단249

-서울북부지방법원 2015.05.29 2014가단119093

-의정부지방법원 2018.02.07 2016가단26396

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2017.03.22 2016가합66

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.01.25 2012고합1688