2. The grounds for this part of the parties’ assertion are as follows, inasmuch as the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as follows, this part of the parties’ assertion will be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

On October 4, 2013, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City enacted the "Standards for Installation of Facilities and Installation of Annexed Parking Lots" (hereinafter referred to as the "Standards for Installation of Facilities in this case") on October 4, 2013 in the part of the first instance judgment No. 5, No. 10 and No. 11 of the judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter referred to as "1 of the first instance judgment"). The Seoul Special Metropolitan City amended the "Seoul Metropolitan City Ordinance on the Installation and Management of Parking Lots" on October 4, 2013, and [Attachment 2] amended the "Standards for Installation of Facilities and Installation of Annexed Parking Lots" (hereinafter referred to as the "Standards for Installation in this case").

B. In addition, the part of the first instance court’s decision is followed by the following addition, in Part 7, No. 15, among the “a summary of the Defendant’s assertion”

“4) Even if this case’s consulting contract is valid

Even if the contract amount stipulated in the instant consulting agreement, the commission for the act of arranging illegal real estate should be deducted. Since the contract amount stipulated in the instant consulting agreement is excessively excessive, it should be reduced considerably.

A person shall be appointed.

3. Determination

A. The first instance court, taking into account the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, determined that the instant consulting contract is not an ordinary “real estate brokerage contract”, and it is reasonable to deem that at least the elements of “real estate consulting contract” are included therein.

Examining the circumstances cited by the first instance court under various circumstances, the first instance court’s determination is justifiable.

Therefore, this court's reasoning is citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition as follows. Thus, this court's reasoning is citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 9 of the decision of the first instance shall be added as follows: