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. On February 9, 2015, Defendant C asked Defendant C of whether there was a building for the Plaintiff to report and purchase real estate brokerage advertisements paid in newspapers. On March 12, 2015, Defendant C sent text messages to Defendant C, stating the location and brief status of the building in Gangseo-gu E (hereinafter “instant building”) around March 12, 2015.

B. Defendant A and B purchased the instant building between husband and wife on June 27, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 15, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, and Gap evidence 3

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was about to purchase the building for profit by Defendant C on behalf of his wife, and the Plaintiff entrusted the brokerage of the building of this case on behalf of his wife, and the Defendant A is his husband and wife, who is his husband and wife, as Defendant C’s husband and wife.

Although the Plaintiff introduced the instant building to Defendant C through employees D, the Defendants excluded the Plaintiff from paying brokerage fees and directly concluded a sales contract with the building owner with the aim of not paying brokerage fees to the Plaintiff.

The defendants' act constitutes a tort that violates the order of commercial transactions, such as the Act on Real Estate Brokerage, and thus infringes on the plaintiff's interest that should receive real estate brokerage commission.

The building owner of this case also requested the plaintiff to act as a broker. The defendants are obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the statutory brokerage commission that the plaintiff could have received from the defendants and the building owner, 50,940,000 won (=2.830,000 won x 0.9% x 2) as damages.

B. Each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 was written only by the judgment of the court below, and the plaintiff mediated the sale and purchase of the building of this case to the defendants.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants entered into a direct sales contract with the building owner for the purpose of not paying brokerage fees, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 1.