[Plaintiff, Appellant] ○○ Real Estate Brokerage Corporation (Law Firm Chamjin, Attorneys Lee Hong-geol and one other, Counsel for the Plaintiff)
[Defendant, Appellee] △△△ Co., Ltd. (Attorney Park Seok-sun, Counsel for the Defendant)
[Judgment Below] Gwangju District Court Decision 2024Na80131, decided April 11, 2025
[Order]
The part of the judgment below against the Plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court.
[Reasoning]
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Relevant Legal Principles
Where there is an agreement between a real estate broker (부동산중개업자) and a client entrusting the brokerage as to the remuneration for the entrusted business, the real estate broker may, in principle, claim the full amount of the agreed remuneration. However, in exceptional cases where, considering the circumstances leading to the entrustment, the progress and difficulty of handling the brokerage business, the degree of effort expended, the specific benefit obtained by the client as a result of the handling of the business, and other circumstances revealed in the pleadings, there exist special circumstances such that the agreed remuneration is unreasonably excessive and thus contrary to the principle of good faith or the principle of equity, the broker may claim only such amount of remuneration as is recognized to be appropriate within a limited scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da107900, decided April 12, 2012). However, since such limitation on the claim for remuneration constitutes, after all, an exception to the principle of freedom of contract, the court must clearly state the reasonable grounds therefor (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2016Da35833, decided May 17, 2018).
2. Judgment of the Court Below
The court below, after finding only the fact that the real estate at issue, which was the subject matter of the sale, became the object of brokerage because the Defendant, intending to newly construct an apartment being promoted by the relevant local housing association, entrusted a non-party on the Plaintiff's side with the service of purchasing the real estate in that area, held—taking into account the circumstances under which the Plaintiff came to be entrusted by the Defendant with the brokerage of the sale contracts, the progress and difficulty of handling the entrusted business, the degree of effort expended by the Plaintiff, the specific benefit obtained by the Defendant, and the statutory upper-limit commission rate at the time the brokerage remuneration agreement was made—that each of the amounts of remuneration agreed upon between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was unreasonably excessive and thus contrary to the principle of good faith or the principle of equity, and accordingly reduced each amount by 50% ex officio.
3. Judgment of the Supreme Court
Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the legal principles set forth above and the record: the court below, apart from the fact concerning the circumstances under which the Plaintiff came to broker the sale contracts regarding the real estate at issue, conducted no examination or determination whatsoever as to the concrete underlying facts from which the various factors serving as the basis for limiting a claim for brokerage remuneration could be inferred, and instead held, relying only on abstract circumstances, that the agreed remuneration was unreasonably excessive and contrary to the principle of good faith or the principle of equity. Such reasoning alone does not make clear an objective and reasonable basis for limiting, as an exception to the principle of freedom of contract, the Plaintiff real estate broker's claim for brokerage remuneration. The judgment below thus contains an error affecting the outcome of the judgment, in that it misapprehended the legal principles concerning limitation of a real estate broker's claim for brokerage remuneration and failed to conduct the necessary examination.
4. Conclusion
Without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment below against the Plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further examination and determination. This judgment is rendered as set forth in the Order by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Justices Lee Heung-gu (Presiding Justice), Oh Seok-jun, Noh Kyung-pil (Justice in charge), Lee Suk-yeon