logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.08.29 2019나331
부당이득금반환
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

2. The Defendants each amounting to KRW 4,835,00,000 to the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ amounting to that amount.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the 1st floor E in Daegu-gun D (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with F to sell the instant building to F (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendants as a broker for the sale of the said building.

C. The Defendants received KRW 9,670,000 from the Plaintiff in return for the intermediation of the instant sales contract.

On the other hand, the Defendants were not qualified as licensed real estate agents and did not establish a brokerage office, and Defendant C was registered as a company director of G on August 10, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that they were not qualified as licensed real estate agents and received fees from the Plaintiff in return for mediating the instant sales contract without any qualification. Since such act is null and void in violation of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, which is mandatory law, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 9,670,00 and delay damages therefor.

B. The defendants alleged by the defendants are those engaged in the sales agency business, and they are duly paid fees from the plaintiff. Thus, they cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim of this case.

3. Determination

A. The term "mediation" subject to the regulation of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act means mediation of sale, exchange, lease, and other gain, loss, and transfer of rights between parties to a transaction regarding the object of brokerage, such as land, building, etc. under Article 3 of the same Act. In light of the purport of the legal provisions aimed at protecting the parties to a transaction, the issue of whether an act constitutes an act of brokerage shall be objectively considered as an act of broker and to arrange

arrow