2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Defendant and C’s spouse have worked as a beauty artist in F on the second floor of the building E in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, which is operated by D (hereinafter “instant beauty shop”).

B. Around May and June 2013, the defect that D intended to transfer the beauty art room of this case, and the Defendant, who became aware of this, decided to take over the beauty art room of this case.

C. On July 29, 2013, D and the Defendant entered into a contract for the acquisition and transfer of rights (facilities) with the following content as the transferor D, transferee, and broker (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”).

Total premium of KRW 180 million (the contract amount of KRW 80 million shall be paid at the time of the contract, and the balance of KRW 100 million shall be paid on September 12, 2013). Article 5 (Service Fees) broker does not assume any responsibility for the default between the parties to the contract.

In addition, service fees shall be paid at the same time as this contract is concluded, and the service fees shall be paid even if this contract has been terminated due to the circumstances between the parties without the intention or negligence of the broker.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. At the time of the transfer contract of this case by the Plaintiff, D sought consultation (service) to pay the remainder to the Plaintiff. At this time, upon the Defendant’s consent, the Defendant agreed to enter into a mediation consultation agreement with the Defendant, and agreed to pay service fees.

(Article 5) (Article 5). The Defendant was unable to timely prepare any balance, and the Plaintiff made a lot of time and effort to perform the contract until the remainder is paid in full on December 31, 2013, and even the Defendant was entitled to a reduction of KRW 10 million out of the remainder, and even the Defendant was entitled to a reduction of KRW 9 million from the commission that was promised by D, 5 million from the reduction of KRW 9 million.

The business performed by the plaintiff was not a real estate brokerage business, but a consulting business on the transfer and takeover of rights, and the right to claim fees for such consulting business.