1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation established on April 7, 2009 as the purpose of the real estate certified brokerage.

On February 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate purchase services contract with the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) (hereinafter “D Company, etc.”) and 1 (hereinafter “D Company, etc.”) wishing to purchase three parcels, including Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”).

The above service agreement was amended by the agreement between the same parties on May 7, 2012 and the agreement dated September 6, 2012.

B. The Defendants jointly owned the instant land with Nonparty E as a siblings.

C. On June 27, 2012, upon the request of D Company, etc., the Plaintiff was issued a letter of intent to sell the instant land, indicating the Defendants’ desire to sell the instant land, and the second letter of intent to sell the real estate, which partially reduced the desired purchase price on September 12, 2012.

With respect to all shares, including co-ownership shares of the Defendants as to the instant land, the ownership transfer registration was completed on June 10, 2015, as of May 22, 2015, for the purchase and sale as of May 10, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including a number of evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the propriety of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been engaged in providing services for the Defendant by introducing D companies, a land purchaser, etc. from June 2012 to March 3, 2012.

Nevertheless, the defendant concluded a sales contract for the land of this case and transferred the ownership of the land of this case by closely contact with D companies, etc. without excluding the plaintiff.

Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the so-called exclusive brokerage contract under Article 23(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act was established, and the Defendants’ act is an act of violating the exclusive brokerage contract.

In particular, the service contract between the plaintiff and the D companies has not yet been terminated.