1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of “2. Additional Determination”, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The Plaintiff asserts that an agreement between the original Defendant on the payment of a real estate transaction brokerage commission cannot be deemed null and void, since the Plaintiff did not engage in real estate brokerage as a business and was not subject to criminal punishment due to a violation of the Real Estate Brokerage Act.

In a case where a real estate transaction brokerage commission agreement is null and void due to a violation of the mandatory law, it refers to a case where a person who is not qualified as a licensed real estate agent acts as a real estate brokerage without registering the establishment of a brokerage office. However, since the term "business of brokerage" refers to a case where a person continues to engage in brokerage by repeating business, it shall be determined according to ordinary social norms by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the continuity of such brokerage act, continuity of business, etc., the existence of such brokerage act, and the purpose, size, recovery, period, and attitude of such act. If a person acts as a broker with an intention to continue to engage in brokerage as well as engaging in brokerage by continuously receiving remuneration continuously, it falls under this case even

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5082 Decided December 7, 2006, etc.). According to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff acted as a broker with an intention to continue the transaction of real estate, on two occasions, upon receiving a request from E to the effect that it would be difficult for the Plaintiff to take advantage of the Plaintiff’s assertion, and that the Plaintiff was acting as a broker for real estate transaction on two occasions around December 2012 and around 2014.

In addition, the Plaintiff, who is not qualified as a licensed real estate agent, has arranged a real estate sales contract as a real estate brokerage without registering the establishment of a brokerage office.