(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.12.13 2016가단850

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.12.13 2016가단850

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2015, the Plaintiff, without qualification as a licensed real estate agent, proposed that “if a sales contract is concluded by introducing a purchaser of a housing site, he/she would pay a certain amount of fee per square year” from the Defendant who conducts the business of developing and selling the land, etc. in the Jeju city as a housing site without registering the establishment of a brokerage office. From around that time to July 2015, the Plaintiff introduced the buyers to the Defendant, thereby making the Defendant enter into a sales contract for the housing site of ten or more parcels between the Defendant and the purchaser.

B. On July 23, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 1,193 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing site”) prior to B in Jeju, one of the Defendant’s prospective housing site to be developed, from KRW 87,50,000,000. Of the price, KRW 9,000,000 shall be paid at the time of the contract, and the remainder shall be settled as the fee calculated as KRW 15,000 per square day of the site that the Plaintiff introduced the buyer at the time of transfer of ownership and entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and the Defendant paid KRW 9,00,000 as the down payment on the date of the contract, and KRW 13,210,000 as the remainder on January 8, 2016, respectively.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence 1, Eul’s evidence 2 (number omitted), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is the cause of the claim in this case. Since the plaintiff paid all the purchase price to the defendant pursuant to the sales contract in this case, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the above sales contract with respect to the housing site in this case. Accordingly, the defendant's agreement on the fee between the plaintiff and the defendant constitutes invalid because the plaintiff who is not qualified as a licensed real estate agent

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.11.19 2014가단538938

-수원지방법원 2018.11.28 2018구합70272

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.17 2019가합582120

-울산지방법원 2014.07.03 2014고단75

-울산지방법원 2016.04.12 2015고단3019