1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the trade name of “B Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”; C is the trade name of “D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”; E is the trade name of “F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.”

B. On September 3, 2014, the Defendant concluded a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Plaintiff’s broker to purchase the land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of 1.59 billion won in the purchase price, 1.594 billion won in Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, which is owned by the G (hereinafter “instant real estate”), as the contract date, and to purchase the remainder of 1.434 million won in the payment on December 3, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. 1) The phrase “a description of the object of brokerage” attached to the sales contract under the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant description”).

The following contents were printed in the “matters concerning brokerage fees, etc. Ⅲ.” (hereinafter “the dispute part of this case”).

(3) The amount of brokerage fees and actual expenses and the brokerage fees: The brokerage fees 1,594,00,000 x 0.9% x 0.9% : The brokerage fees shall be determined by mutual agreement between the client and the practicing licensed real estate agent within the scope of 9/1,00 of the transaction amount, and the value-added tax may be imposed separately. The defendant violated the number of lines on the part of “0.9%” among the dispute portion of the instant explanatory note (Evidence B) in the Defendant’s custody at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, and affixed a seal on that part with the Plaintiff’s seal affixed thereon.

3) After the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff stated KRW 14,346,00 on each side of the instant explanatory note in the custody of the Plaintiff (a certificate No. 1 of this case, adjacent to the “mediation remuneration,” which was a disturbance in the instant dispute, and the adjacent parts of the “mediation remuneration: 1,594,000,000 x 0.9% x 0.9% x.”

The defendant is more than the balance payment date stipulated in the original contract of this case.