A. The Defendant is an executor of a new construction of the Daegu-gu Ctel (hereinafter “the instant officetel”), and D (hereinafter “the company abroad”) is a sales agent of the instant officetel, and the Plaintiff is a business employee of the non-party company.

B. The Plaintiff proposed that the Plaintiff would create a sales agent team of the Defendant Company E, conduct external publicity through tables, etc., and that the Defendant and the third party would receive fees from the Defendant when concluding the sales contract of the instant officetel.

C. The Defendant had the Plaintiff serve as sales agent at the Defendant Company’s office, intended to introduce customers who visited the instant officetel model house and provide counseling. The Defendant paid fees calculated as KRW 5 million per case on seven sales contracts through the Nonparty Company, which the Plaintiff concluded.

[Identification Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 through 7, Gap evidence No. 4, witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Part of the fee claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In addition to the seven contracts for sale in lots for which the commission was paid, the Plaintiff concluded six contracts for sale in total of G-hos (H), I, and J-hos (K), L-hos (M), N-hos (P, and O-hos (P) among the instant officetels, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not comply with the Plaintiff’s terms of the contract for sale in lots and the commitment for performance of its duties, and thus, the Plaintiff could not enter into a contract for

Among the details of the conclusion of the contract for sale in lots claimed by the Plaintiff, I, J (K), N andO (P) visit the Defendant's model house and consulted with the Defendant's employees F, etc., and thus, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the Plaintiff fees for the above four cases.

Part that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff.