Even if a real estate transaction ultimately falls through because the tenant did not vacate, a court has ruled that the licensed real estate agent must still be paid the brokerage fee. Although, in practice, many in the real estate market decide whether to pay the brokerage commission only after the balance is settled, the court found that the brokerage work was already completed when the sales contract was signed.
On the 20th, according to legal sources and the real estate industry, the Seoul Central District Court this month released the written judgment for case 2025가단89955 as one of its key rulings. The court ordered defendant B Co. to pay plaintiff licensed real estate agent A a brokerage fee of 1.0395 billion won and late-payment damages. The late-payment damages are to be calculated at an annual rate of 12% from June 19, 2025, until paid in full.
The case arose during the sale of land and a building on it in Jung District, Seoul. On Oct. 30, 2024, through A's brokerage, B Co. signed a contract to sell the property to buyer C for 10.5 billion won. The down payment was 1.05 billion won, the interim payment was 1.55 billion won, and the balance was 8.4 billion won. The interim payment date was set for Nov. 29, 2024, and the balance payment date for May 1, 2025.
An important special provision was included in the contract. B Co. agreed to deliver the land and building to the buyer after vacating all tenants from the property. The parties later postponed the balance payment date from May 1, 2025, to May 16 of the same month.
However, even after the postponed balance date passed, B Co. failed to vacate all the tenants. Buyer C withheld the balance for that reason. Having not received the balance, B Co. concluded that the sale had not been finalized and did not pay agent A the brokerage fee.
A then filed a lawsuit against B Co., seeking a brokerage fee of 1.0395 billion won and delayed interest. In court, B Co. argued, "Plaintiff A postponed the balance payment date from May 1, 2025, to May 16, and even on the postponed balance date the buyer did not pay the balance," and therefore "there is no obligation to pay the brokerage fee."
But the court did not accept B Co.'s argument. The panel noted that the sales contract's special terms stated, "The balance date may be adjusted by mutual agreement," and found that B Co. also agreed to postpone the balance date from May 1 to May 16. Therefore, it held that responsibility for the postponement could not be placed on agent A.
The court also found that the reason the sale was not carried through to completion was not because the agent's brokerage work was unfinished, but because the seller failed to fulfill the obligation to have tenants vacate. The panel said, "The defendant agreed to deliver the property after vacating all tenants of the property in this case, but it appears that as of the postponed balance payment date—and even as of Sept. 9, 2025, the date the arguments concluded—the tenants were still occupying and using the property."
It added, "Given that the buyer is withholding the balance payment for this reason, it is difficult to find that the plaintiff's brokerage work for this sales contract was not completed or that the time to pay the brokerage fee has not arrived."
In the end, the court found that the mere fact that the buyer did not pay the balance does not extinguish the obligation to pay the brokerage fee. If a sales contract has been signed and the delay in paying the balance is due to the seller's failure to have tenants vacate, the licensed agent's brokerage work can be deemed already completed.
Attorney Byeon Seon-bo of Law Firm Jium said, "In typical real estate sales contracts, many people think that if the balance is not received, the contract is not finalized and the brokerage fee need not be paid," adding, "But once the sales contract is drafted, the contract is concluded and the brokerage work is done as a matter of law, so the obligation to pay the brokerage fee arises."