1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the amount ordered below.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent who runs real estate brokerage business under the trade name of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C and E.

B. On July 15, 2017, the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife F entered into a sales contract with G and H apartment I (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with respect to the right to sell the apartment amount of KRW 1,83,00,000 on the Plaintiff’s brokerage, and KRW 459,900,000, out of KRW 913,200,000 in the settlement payment, the loan amount of KRW 913,200 shall be succeeded to the present state, and KRW 45,00 in the settlement payment, the intermediate payment of KRW 25,000 in the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 250,000,00 in the remainder, September 2, 2017, the remainder of KRW 153,30,000,000 in each payment of KRW 153,00 on November 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

Among the contents of the instant sales contract, the entire contract deposit shall be deemed as the seller where the buyer violates the contract, and whether the intermediate payment is qualified shall be the buyer’s liability.

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, the letter of confirmation of the object of brokerage signed and sealed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant letter of confirmation”) states as follows: “The brokerage remuneration is 8,218,800 won, the statement of calculation 913,200,000 won x 0.90% x the brokerage remuneration is in accordance with the rate prescribed by City/Do municipal ordinance or in accordance with the rate determined by City/Do municipal ordinance or in accordance with the rate that the client and the practicing licensed real estate agent make a decision by mutual consultation, value-added tax may be imposed separately.

On the other hand, on August 23, 2017, the Defendant notified G of the cancellation of the instant sales contract on the ground that it is impossible to succeed to the intermediate payment loan for the instant apartment, and thereafter filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the down payment (Seoul Central District Court 2017Da5167211) against G, but the said court dismissed the Defendant’s claim on the ground that it is difficult to deem the instant sales contract to have reached an impossible performance due to a cause not attributable to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed the Seoul Central District Court.