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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On June 3, 2013, A, B, and C acquired a loan claim against an obligor and owner in the above auction procedure of the non-party company in the condition that the bid price on the date of sale of the auction auction case of D real estate in this court was more than 40.5 billion won from the limited company specializing in EFa No. 30 of Korea (hereinafter “non-party company”) and that the bid price was more than 40.5 billion won at the auction procedure of the non-party company.

B. In entering into the above bond acquisition agreement, the plaintiff was the transferee Eul, and the defendant was the broker of the non-party company (hereinafter "the mediation of this case"), respectively. The plaintiff was paid 150 million won from A as the brokerage commission (excluding additional tax) and the defendant was paid 200 million won from the non-party company (including additional tax).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff agreed to jointly distribute one-half of the brokerage fees when the mediation of this case is completed with the defendant. 2) The plaintiff is the plaintiff as the broker of this case, and the sum of the brokerage fees paid by the defendant is KRW 365 million (including value added tax), so the 1/2 of which is KRW 182.5 million should be distributed to the defendant, and the defendant should be distributed to the defendant. Since the defendant was paid KRW 200 million with the brokerage fees, the difference is KRW 17.5 million (=20 million - KRW 182.5 million) should be settled to the plaintiff.

B. In light of the judgment, it is difficult to believe that the statement of No. 8, which seems to conform to the agreed fact that the defendant agreed to allocate one-half of the brokerage commission of this case, is not sufficient to recognize only the statement of No. 2, No. 4, and No. 7 (including the serial number), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without any further review.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.