1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 22, 2009, the Plaintiff and C entered into a contract for the acquisition of business rights of “Ecafeteria” located in the Gu during the Ansan-si operated by C as the Defendant’s intermediary.

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the building owner F of the E-cafeteria and E-cafeteria with the Defendant’s brokerage.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to C on March 22, 2009, and KRW 10 million on May 6, 2009, and paid KRW 29 million to the Defendant and KRW 10 million to F on May 6, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, 9 to 14, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s cause of the Plaintiff’s claim paid KRW 29 million to the Defendant at the time of concluding the E-cafeteria business license acquisition agreement and the E-cafeteria real estate lease agreement. The Defendant’s act of mediating the business license acquisition agreement and the real estate lease agreement without a licensed real estate agent qualification is null and void as it violates the Real Estate Brokerage Act, which is a mandatory law, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 29 million to the Plaintiff.

Even if the defendant's act of brokerage is valid, it is obligated to return as unjust enrichment the upper limit of 5,940,000 won exceeding the upper limit of 5,940,000 won under the Real Estate Brokerage Act. If the above 29,000 won is not a brokerage commission, the defendant is obligated to return it as unjust enrichment since it receives from the plaintiff without any legal cause.

B. As to whether the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 29 million to the Defendant constitutes a brokerage commission, it is insufficient to recognize the payment, even based on all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties, and the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 14 through 16, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including various numbers, if any), the plaintiff takes over a restaurant, and then the plaintiff takes over it to the defendant.