logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.12.21 2017가단310926
중개수수료지급청구의 소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On November 1, 2016, the Plaintiff arranged a sales contract between the Defendant (seller) and C (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Party”) on the part of November 1, 2016, and the Plaintiff decided not to receive a brokerage commission from the Defendant as the sales amount is not adjusted. The Plaintiff drafted a sales contract with the same content as attached Form 1.

(hereinafter “previous sales contract”). After that, the Plaintiff is aware that value-added tax is imposed on a building among the objects of sale, and notify the Defendant and the Nonparty of this fact, and seek understanding from the Nonparty, and re-attached Form.

2. The written sales contract was prepared

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Nonparty completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 3, 2017 regarding the subject matter of sale.

[Ground of recognition] The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 41,940,000 won (the purchase price shall be 4,660,000,000 won x 0.9%) as a brokerage commission pursuant to Article 7 of the sales contract of this case, where the plaintiff asserted the facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 and 4 evidence (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole argument.

Judgment

First, even though the previous sales contract contains a statement about the payment of the same brokerage commission as Article 7 of the sales contract of this case, the fact that the plaintiff did not receive a brokerage commission from the defendant does not have any dispute between the parties. Accordingly, it is examined as to whether there was an agreement on the payment of the brokerage commission between the original defendant in preparing the sales contract of this case.

According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments as to Gap 2, Eul 2, Eul 4, Eul 1 through 3, and 5 through 7, the sales contract of this case was prepared in a way that the parties sign and seal it after entering the files in which the plaintiff prepared the previous sales contract into a computer to receive revised matters. The plaintiff printed out the above sales contract and then signed and sealed it. The plaintiff is "0.9% additional tax rate" at the end of Article 7 at the end of the previous year.

arrow