(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.02 2016가단5259243

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.02 2016가단5259243

중개수수료

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant's land and building Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") from the plaintiff several times.

(2) On March 2015, the Plaintiff had been provided with the information on the instant real estate, whether to be remodeled, and the cost thereof, and requested the Plaintiff to trade the instant real estate at a high price. (2) Thereafter, the Plaintiff consulted with the owner of the instant real estate (hereinafter “owner”) on the purchase terms, including the purchase price of KRW 22 billion, presented by the Defendant, and entered into a contract on June 26, 2015.

However, on June 22, 2015, the defendant's side proposed new purchase conditions including 21.5 billion won around the purchase price in August 2015.

Accordingly, the plaintiff, in consultation with the owner again, met with the defendant as well as the management department of the owner's side, and concluded the contract on the first week in September 2015.

However, on September 2, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he did not enter the contract on the ground that “the Plaintiff was not a large vehicle in the mechanical parking lot of the instant real estate and that there was a large amount of remodeling expenses.”

After that, the Plaintiff was informed the Defendant of the transaction trend of the instant real estate, but the Defendant’s side, around March 2016, was able to proceed with the instant contract if the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at KRW 20 billion, and the Plaintiff again led to the Plaintiff’s intention, and the owner’s side should be 20.8 billion.

Therefore, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's side should not be 20 billion won or more in the middle line of KRW 20 billion and KRW 20.8 billion. However, the defendant's side strongly argued that it should not be 20 billion or more.

However, the defendant's side did not know about June 9, 2016 to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.08 2016가단5281578

-창원지방법원진주지원 2019.02.14 2018가단34946

-전주지방법원 2017.04.07 2016가단22686

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.16 2014가단57202

-부산지방법원 2019.03.21 2018나5130