1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was the owner of 71m2 and D large scale 81m2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff is a corporation that engages in sales agency business, real estate consulting business, real estate sales business, etc.

B. The consulting remuneration agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff (hereinafter the consulting remuneration agreement is referred to as the “instant agreement”) with the following terms and conditions, and the consulting remuneration agreement was written.

In the sale and purchase of the following private land for the promotion of the regional E regional housing association at Guri-si, the A representative director F refers to “A” and the owner B refers to “B”, and the following agreements are made:

(a) E CD 71㎡ 81 square meter 46 square meters in Gu-ri, Gu-ri, the location of private land;

1. A shall, at the request of B, set forth a purchase and sale agreement in a manner consistent with equity, and shall pay A a balance of KRW 50,000,000 (a separate addition) simultaneously with the receipt of any balance.

2. Eul shall pay the agreed amount to Gap, for any reason, at the same time as the receipt of any balance.

If the promise is not implemented, A will bring legal action.

(c)

On May 28, 2019, the Defendant sold the instant real estate to E Housing Association Promotion Committee and G Co., Ltd. in KRW 550,000,000, and received KRW 55,000 as the down payment on June 30, 2019, and received KRW 495,00,000 on April 28, 2020.

(d)

On July 1, 2019, the Defendant paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff as consulting expenses under the instant agreement.

E. The Defendant filed a complaint with the purport that F, a representative of the Plaintiff, had forged and exercised the instant agreement (No. 41033). However, on August 28, 2020, the prosecutor, despite being aware that the Defendant was a public official’s consulting fee agreement, had F affix his seal to the said agreement, and H’s purport consistent with the F’s assertion (the Defendant’s pro-friendly punishment).