beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant and the plaintiff's claims expanded by this court are dismissed.
2. Appeal;
Reasons
The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: "2% of the resale price by unit (excluding additional tax) of the first instance judgment" of the 7th 11th e.g., "2. time of payment: 60% of the resale price by unit (excluding additional tax)" of the first instance judgment;
3. Amount of payment: To be placed at the rate of two percent (excluding additional tax) of the resale price by house, and the claims extended by the plaintiff and the claims additionally raised by the original defendant are stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for those determined as set forth in the following paragraph 2. Thus, they shall be quoted as they are in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, excluding the following additional determination, do not differ significantly from the allegations in the first instance trial, and the fact-finding and determination by the first instance court are deemed legitimate even if all the evidence submitted in this court were to be comprehensively considered as a whole). The summary of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim for extension of the sales commission is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant real estate in lots was additionally sold on July 25, 2017 by the Plaintiff’s sales agency; (b) the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the
Judgment
The evidence No. 12 states that the defendant entered into a sales contract with the buyer introduced by the real estate agent office, and Article 5 (1) of the sales agency contract of this case stipulates that the plaintiff bears all the expenses incurred in selling business, but the defendant pays the real estate brokerage fees for the above Item G to the real estate agent side (Evidence No. 15 and 16). Thus, it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone was concluded by the sales agency of the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the claim cannot be accepted.
The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion of additional assertion on the security deposit for sale is that the supply contract of this case is actually an agency for sale of each real estate.