logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.10.15 2019나101036
부동산중개보수
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent operating a “F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seocheon-gu, and the Defendant B leased G and the first floor store in Y (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. In order to transfer the instant store at around 2017, Defendant B requested brokerage of KRW 150 million, monthly rent of KRW 60 million, premium of KRW 170,000 to the Plaintiff’s office and I Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Office, etc., and advertised at the intersection.

C. Defendant C began to find a store that operates a cruise store around January 2018, and received the instant store via the I Licensed Real Estate Agent Office operated by each J-gu.

Defendant C, even after opening this case’s store, visited four brokerage offices including the Plaintiff’s office to request a store brokerage to operate a store with a cruise store. Defendant C received and rejected another store from the Plaintiff’s office. On the other hand, the instant store was already known.

E. Around February 4, 2018, Defendant B entered into an agreement to transfer the instant store to a person who would operate a hot spring store.

In addition, on February 11, 2018, the Plaintiff introduced the instant store to Defendant C an amount of KRW 80 million including value-added tax of KRW 70 million. The Plaintiff clarified that Defendant C would not take over the instant store to the Plaintiff.

F. When the contract with the person who was trying to operate a hot spring store at the end of February 2018 was terminated, Defendant B again requested the brokerage of the instant store by lowering premium to KRW 70 million in the Plaintiff’s office to mediate the contract with Defendant C.

In addition, until March 28, 2018, Defendant C did not have any progress due to the lack of contact by Defendant C even until March 28, 2018, Defendant C’s telephone number was received from the Plaintiff’s staff K on the same day and directly contacted Defendant C.

arrow