logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.19 2015나9324
손해배상
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the first preliminary claim added at the trial, Defendant B shall be the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment concerning this defense and the main claim for damages due to unlawful acts are as follows: the court of first instance stated " Won 50 million won" in the fourth 10th 10th of the judgment of the court of first instance as " Won 50 million won," and the fourth 11th "not recognized the fulfillment of the conditions" in the fourth 5th 5th 1000 won and "the remainder 24 million won" in the last 5th 1000 won and "the remainder 25 million won" in the second 9th 3rd Q "K" as "K", and the third 17 and 18th 18th 3th 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 400 o evidence are added as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is justified as it is, in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. As to Defendant B, although Defendant B is not qualified as a licensed real estate agent, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff should make recommendations for investment in real estate over several occasions, arrange for purchase of real estate, and return it in unjust enrichment because it was paid a total of KRW 4,7550,000. The former Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 9127, Jun. 13, 2008) aims to guide and foster the real estate brokerage business in a sound manner and establish a transparent order in real estate transactions (Article 1). In light of the legislative purpose of the same Act, the agreement that a person without qualification as a licensed real estate agent mediates the real estate sales contract as a real estate brokerage business without registering the establishment of a brokerage office and concluded with the trading party to pay brokerage fees is null and void in violation of the mandatory law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da75119, Dec. 23, 2010; 2015Da6515, Jun. 25, 2014

arrow