Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion along with the co-defendant C of the first instance trial, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to sell a sales brokerage for Class 2 neighborhood living facilities of Class 4 above the fourth floor above the ground of Suwon-si D ground reinforced concrete structure, Suwon-si, and the said real estate was sold on March 24, 2015 according to the Plaintiff’s brokerage (hereinafter “instant brokerage”). As such, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff a commission of KRW 10,000,000 as agreed with the co-defendant C of the first instance trial and the delay damages.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, the court below held that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant was set-off of KRW 10,00,000 against the defendant due to the mediation of this case and the defendant's claim against the defendant under the Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016Da27639 against the defendant, but the plaintiff's claim against the mediation commission and the claim against the defendant under the loan (5,00,000,000 and damages for delay) was dismissed, and the judgment (hereinafter "prior judgment") became final and conclusive on November 16, 2018, since the plaintiff's claim in this case conflicts with the res judicata effect of the preceding judgment (Article 216 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act), and the plaintiff's claim in this case cannot be accepted.

Even if the amount of offset claim (5,00,000 won and damages for delay) effective in the preceding judgment falls short of the amount of brokerage commission (10,000,000 won and damages for delay) claimed by the Plaintiff in this case, the res judicata of the preceding judgment extends only to part of the Plaintiff’s assertion in this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the entries in the evidence Nos. 3, 6-9, 11, and 12 are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed to bear the obligation to pay the commission for the instant brokerage, and there is no other evidence to support this.