The validity of an agreement exceeding the criteria and limits set forth in Article 4 of the Introduction and Business Act with respect to the fees for the introduction business;

According to Article 4 of the Introduction and Business Act, the criteria and limits on the fee for the brokerage business shall be determined by the Ordinance of Seoul Special Metropolitan City or Do, and the brokerage business operator shall not set the fee in excess of the above criteria and limits. The above provisions are mandatory provisions, and the agreement portion exceeding the above criteria and limits shall be deemed null and void.

Article 4 of the Introduction Business Act, Article 5 of the Introduction Business Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Civil History District Court (80 Gohap1643)

The plaintiff's appeal and the preliminary claim added in the trial are dismissed, respectively.

Expenses incurred after an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The principal claim shall:

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. (A) The principal claim: the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount of KRW 8,631,90 with an annual interest rate of 5% from the day following the service of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

(B) The first preliminary claim: the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff an amount of KRW 161,90 and an annual interest rate of KRW 5% from the day following the service of the complaint of this case to the date of full payment, and shall execute the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the profit distribution agreement on December 6, 197 with respect to 1/3 of the shares of the real estate stated in the attached list.

(C) The second preliminary claim (in addition to the trial): the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff an amount of KRW 3,126,500 with an annual interest rate of KRW 5% from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against both the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s main claim and the first ancillary claim.

Comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the pleading in the statement No. 1 (a sales contract) which does not dispute the establishment, the defendant can be acknowledged to purchase the land of Gangnam-gu Seoul from Nonparty 1 in the aggregate of KRW 73,541,000,000 per deliberation, with the introduction of the plaintiff on December 15, 1977, the defendant purchased the land of Gangnam-gu Seoul from Nonparty 1 in the aggregate of KRW 87,00,000 per deliberation, and there is no other counter-

The plaintiff's attorney, as the introduction of the above sale contract, purchased the above land on or around December 6, 197, and promised to distribute profits from resale to another at the ratio of 2/3 and 1/3 of the plaintiff (the plaintiff asserts, under the above conditions, that the plaintiff entered into a partnership contract for the sale of the above land). After the above contract, the defendant sold the above land at KRW 77,327,00 and did not pay KRW 1,00 to the plaintiff for KRW 1,00 and KRW 1,00,00, KRW 30 and KRW 1,785, KRW 90, KRW 1,000, KRW 100, KRW 300, KRW 100, KRW 300, KRW 1,000, KRW 300, KRW 1,000, KRW 1,261, KRW 90, KRW 1,900, KRW 300, KRW 200, KRW 360, KRW 2014,2005.

Therefore, it seems consistent with the plaintiff's argument that the defendant introduced this agreement in purchasing the above real estate, the part of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6, each of the testimony of non-party Nos. 2 and non-party Nos. 3 of the court below's witness and non-party No. 3 of the court below's criminal record verification result is not accepted as it is not reliable, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it by the plaintiff's prior proof.

2. The plaintiff's second preliminary claims are examined.

The plaintiff's attorney argues that the defendant shall pay 4,226,500 won per ordinary letter to the plaintiff in purchasing the above real estate, even if the above claim is groundless, since the defendant agreed to pay 5,000 won per ordinary letter to the plaintiff in purchasing the above real estate, the plaintiff's assertion that he should pay 4,226,500 won per ordinary letter as the introduction fee for the above sale and purchase, but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant agreed to pay 5,00 won per ordinary letter as the introduction fee for the above sale and purchase. However, since the defendant agreed to pay 3,00 won per ordinary letter as the introduction fee for the above sale and purchase of real estate, the plaintiff's assertion within the limit of 3,000 won per ordinary letter is reasonable, and the fact that the plaintiff received 1,100,000 won among them is not a dispute between the parties.

However, according to Article 4 of the Introduction and Business Act, the standard and limit of the fee for the brokerage business shall be determined by Seoul Special Metropolitan City or Municipal Ordinance so that the brokerage business operator may not set the fee in excess of the above standard and limit. Furthermore, Article 5 of the same Act provides that the brokerage business operator is prohibited from demanding or receiving any money or goods other than the prescribed fee regardless of the name. The above relevant provision is not only the amount of the brokerage fee in excess of the above limit, but also belongs to the so-called mandatory law denying the judicial effect of the brokerage fee agreement in excess of the above limit, and the agreement exceeding the prescribed maximum amount shall be null and void. According to the above Article 4 of the Introduction and Business Act, if the purchase price of the object exceeds 50 million won and less than 100 million won x 300,000 won x 305,000 won x 4050,000 won - 1050,000 won - 405,000 won - 105,04,07.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's main claim and the first preliminary claim are without merit, and they are dismissed. The judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the second preliminary claim added in the trial is without merit, and they are dismissed, and the second preliminary claim added in the trial is also dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with the principle of the losing party's burden.

Judges Yoon Il-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-young