A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent operating the “E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

B. On January 24, 2018, the Defendants concluded a real estate sales contract with the purchase price of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F apartment G (hereinafter “instant apartment”) at KRW 2 billion (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. The Defendants, prior to the payment date of the remainder, leased the instant apartment to a third party and planned to prepare a balance of KRW 1.8 billion by adding the Defendants’ funds to the lease deposit received from a third party, and requested the Plaintiff to seek lessee for the instant apartment by the payment date of the remainder.

On May 31, 2018, when the Defendants did not seek lessee for the instant apartment, they concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff’s brokerage around May 31, 2018, with the lease deposit of KRW 1.2 billion. The Defendants paid the remainder and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant apartment after adding the funds raised by the loans, etc. in the said lease deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 7, 10, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. 1) Determination on the cause of the claim is based on the above facts finding that the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay the brokerage commission to the Plaintiff that arranged the instant sales contract, barring any special circumstance. 2) In full view of the evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 7’s purport of pleading in light of the scope of the obligation to pay the brokerage commission, the items of the brokerage commission under the sales contract of this case are indicated as KRW 19,800,000 (the amount including value added tax in KRW 18,00,000,000 for KRW 2 billion X0.9% of the sales price), but this is based on Article 32(4) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, and Article 20(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, which provides that the Plaintiff and the Defendants shall not exceed 0.9% of the sales price.