A. The Plaintiff is a person who provides real estate consulting, selling in lots, or leasing services. From July 2015 to July 2015, the Defendants built the 4th floor neighborhood building on the D ground of Goyang-si, Manyang-si. The said building has a total of 11 commercial buildings (5 floors, 2-4 floors, respectively).

B. On October 2, 2015, the Defendants entered into a sales agency contract with the Plaintiff from October 1, 2015 to May 15, 2016, and the period of the contract from October 15, 2015 to May 15, 2016, and the sales agency fee is eight percent of the sales amount. However, the Defendants entered into a sales agency contract with the effect that 2% after the deposit of the down payment, 1% after the deposit of the intermediate payment, 2% after the payment of the balance, and 3% upon the completion of 10% of the sales amount, respectively (hereinafter “instant sales

C. The Plaintiff, including the completion of the Plaintiff’s sale, sold four commercial buildings out of the total 11 commercial buildings during the contract period stipulated in the instant sales agency contract (from October 1, 2015 to May 15, 2016), and sold the remaining seven commercial buildings up to June 9, 2016.

Meanwhile, the sales price of the entire 11 commercial buildings is KRW 4,399,371,580, and the Plaintiff was paid 5% of the sales agency fee by the Defendants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 5 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 131,981,147, which is the total sales price of KRW 31,99,371,580, which is 3% of the total sales price agreed to be paid after completion of 100% of the sales price as stipulated in the instant sales agency contract, and that the Defendants seek payment of the said money against the Defendants.

As to this, the Defendants concluded a new sales agency contract on the condition that they waive the so-called completion fee to pay 3% of the total sales price after completion of 100% of the sales price around May 25, 2016, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.