(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.01.17 2016가단212516

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) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.01.17 2016가단212516

분양대행수수료

Text

1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 57,222,00 and KRW 50,072,00 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) from November 1, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales agency contract with the content that the Plaintiff shall receive delegation from the Defendant for the sales of the said building from the Defendant, and that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 8% of the sales price as the commission for the performance of the sales agency service, and that the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff 3% of the sales price at the time of the contract, 3% of the first intermediate payment, 1% of the first intermediate payment, 1% of the second intermediate payment, 1% of the second intermediate payment, and 1% of the remainder payment within seven days from the date of each payment.

(hereinafter “instant sales agency contract”). B.

Between August 2014 and November 2014, the Plaintiff performed the sales agency services for the total of nine units of the instant building, including 201, 202, 205, 206, 207, 301, 302, 304, and 802.

C. Around February 2016, the Defendant terminated the instant sales agency contract on the ground that the Plaintiff’s sales performance was low.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 3 through 6, Gap's evidence 9 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 57,222,00 among the fees to be paid by the Defendant under the instant parcelling-out agency contract.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion and counterclaim, the Defendant has a duty to communicate with the buyer from the date of sale to the date of the full payment of the price, to resolve all civil petitions, and to manage the buyer in full, and to pay a certain percentage of the price for the continuous service. The Defendant terminated the instant sales agency contract on February 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not perform the management work for the head office sold by the Plaintiff after the termination of the contract. Thus, the contract is concluded.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.08.10 2017나54296

-서울동부지방법원 2016.12.21 2015가단49119

-광주고등법원 2020.08.20 2019나25560

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2021.04.27 2020가단107632

-수원지방법원 2015.02.10 2013가합20055