1. The Defendant’s KRW 92,053,560 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from April 18, 2017 to June 21, 2018.

The plaintiff is a company with the purpose of real estate development business, consulting business, etc.

① On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract for purchase of C forest land of 219,00,000 won from B, etc. on May 26, 2014; ② purchase contract for purchase of forest land of 600,000 won for E, F, and G from D on May 26, 2014; ③ purchase contract for purchase of forest land of 286,160,000 won from H on May 26, 2014.

Each of the above sales contracts was concluded as a broker for the defendant.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 12 million to the Defendant six times between May 13, 2014 and October 2, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant brokerage commission”). Of the instant brokerage commission, KRW 12 million is the said commission: (i) the sales contract; and (ii) the remaining money is paid as the commission for the sales contract; and (iii) the sales contract.

On the other hand, the defendant is not qualified as a licensed real estate agent.

[Reasons for recognition] Fact that there is no partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number of documentary evidence), Eul evidence Nos. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings is invalid because a person who is not qualified as a licensed real estate agent for judgment of the purport of the whole pleadings does not register the establishment of a brokerage office without registering the establishment of a real estate brokerage office, and the payment agreement between the parties to the purchase and sale of real estate is in violation

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da44726 Decided June 28, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Da75119 Decided December 23, 2010, etc.). Therefore, an agreement between a non-licensed real estate agent and a third party on the payment of brokerage fees entered into between the Plaintiff and a third party is null and void.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return 92,053,560 won and damages for delay received from the plaintiff without any legal ground in violation of the mandatory law as requested by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, barring any special circumstance.

The defendant's argument is not satisfied.