Bucheon-si

2. The head of the Fund (I);

Busan City IM (IM)

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, and Gyeong-M

Bucheon-si TOD

2. Stock company 000;

IT TET in Busan High City IT TET

this representative director

3. Demotion.

Incheon E

Attorney Nam-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court below shall be corrected as shown in the attached Form.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the most important part of the real estate sales contract of this case is whether the bank loan for the preparation of purchase price, and the plaintiffs renounced to arrange for the bank loan, but the real estate sales contract of this case was concluded by leading the business of the bank loan of this case, and the above sales contract was terminated as it did not eventually fail to lend the bank loan, and therefore, the plaintiffs' right to claim

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no illegality in finding facts beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. 2. The records show that the plaintiff new company filed the lawsuit of this case against the defendant this corporation and ○○○○○ (hereinafter "the defendant company"), claiming a brokerage commission of KRW 20 million. The court of first instance partially accepted the plaintiff's new claim and stated the purport that "the defendant company shall jointly and severally pay 7 million won to the new company and interest thereon, and dismiss the remainder of the plaintiff's new claim." The court of first instance appealed against the above judgment of the court of first instance without appeal against the plaintiff's new appeal, but without appeal against the plaintiff's new judgment of the court of first instance, against the plaintiff's 10 million won among the part against the plaintiff's new judgment of the court of first instance. The court below revoked the part against the plaintiff's new judgment of the judgment of first instance.

2. It can be known that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant and the Defendant Company is all dismissed.

Although the court below did not state “Incidental appeal” in the disposition, it can be deemed that the above order of the court below, which dismissed all the plaintiff’s claims as to the plaintiff’s newness, of the judgment of the court of first instance, includes the judgment that dismissed the incidental appeal. Since the court below determined that the plaintiff’s claim for brokerage commission is not recognized on the ground of the judgment of the court below, it cannot be accepted the plaintiff’s new ground of appeal that the judgment of the court below was erroneous in the omission of judgment (it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below which stated the order of revocation of all the plaintiff’s new part of the judgment of the court of first instance beyond the scope of KRW 17 million,

No appeal may be made).

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench on the ground that there is an obvious clerical error in the judgment below.

Justices Yang Sung-tae

Justices Kim Gin-tae

Justices Yang Chang-soo