logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.18 2016나2061731
용역비
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The appeal cost arises between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”)

(2) On July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to intermediate the building located in Seoul for the purchase of private houses. (2) On August 22, 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff’s director confirmed the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, a licensed real estate agent on the seller’s side (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) to sell the instant real estate owned by the F in Gangnam-gu E-gu and 407.2 square meters and its ground-based buildings (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and then delivered information on the instant real estate to I, a person in charge of the purchase of private houses in Defendant C.

3) Defendant C expressed his intent to purchase the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and on October 22, 2013, the Plaintiff sent his intent to purchase the instant real estate form to I. On October 30, 2013, Defendant C sent to the Plaintiff a letter of intent to purchase 14 billion won and 3 months with the effective period of 14 billion won, and the Plaintiff sent the said letter of intent to purchase to the Intervenor. The Plaintiff sent the said letter of intent to purchase to the Intervenor. 4) The Plaintiff and the Intervenor presented their opinions on the purchase price of the instant real estate to Defendant C and F, each of the clients, and as a result, received the letter of intent to sell from F on November 30, 2013, 17.2 billion won and its effective period as of December 10, 2013.

5) On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to I a sales contract of the instant real estate, a description of the object of brokerage, and a comprehensive acquisition and transfer contract of the instant real estate. (b) However, the Defendant C’s notice of withdrawal of the purchase request was not concluded because it did not find any contact point between the seller’s price and the purchaser’s price presented during the process of negotiations on the purchase price, and Defendant C notified the Plaintiff of the withdrawal of the purchase request on May 21, 2014. (c) The sales and transfer of the instant real estate was notified that F would purchase the instant real estate from G licensed real estate agents and Defendant D (hereinafter “Defendant D”) around March 2015.

arrow