logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.08.01 2016가단318329
중개수수료지급청구의 소
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 29,700,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from April 23, 2015 to May 20, 2016.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of evidence No. 1-1, No. 1-2, No. 3-1 through No. 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness B, the Defendant’s father C, acting for the Defendant on January 15, 2015, requested the Plaintiff to purchase a factory of the size of 90 square meters of land and 1,980 square meters of land on behalf of the Defendant. ② The Defendant entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff on April 22, 2015, with respect to the Plaintiff’s brokerage for the Cheongpad Co., Ltd. and the Defendant’s factory located in Busan Seo-gu, Busan (hereinafter in this case’s factory) with the purchase price of KRW 3 billion on the following day. ③ The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff on April 22, 2015 for the purchase and sale brokerage commission on April 22, 2015.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 27 million, value-added tax of KRW 27 million, and KRW 29.7 million, as well as damages for delay calculated with 15% per annum under the Commercial Act from April 23, 2015 to May 20, 2016, the day following the date of delivery of the complaint of this case, which is the day of delivery of the complaint of this case, to May 20, 2016.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. One claim as to the defense against set-off against the damage claim, the plaintiff did not comply with the first claim despite the obligation of the defendant to verify the leakage of the factory in mediating the factory in this case, and to explain it. ② The amount of KRW 2.8 billion out of the purchase price of KRW 3 billion from an enterprise bank was succeeded to the existing loan and to obtain additional loans of KRW 200 million from the enterprise bank.

The defendant violated the duty to explain the plaintiff's leakage confirmation on July 2015.

arrow