1. The judgment of the first instance, including any claims added by this court, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent operating “C”, and the Defendant is the owner of the building and accessories on each of the above land (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On January 12, 2018, the Defendant: (a) sold the instant real estate to F and G (hereinafter “Buyer”) as the Plaintiff’s intermediary; (b) concluded a sales contract with F and G (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the terms that KRW 1,450,000 for down payment of KRW 100,000 on the contract date; and (c) an intermediate payment of KRW 100,000 on January 30, 2018; and (d) the remainder of KRW 1,250,000 on April 26, 2018 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff prepared a description verifying the object of brokerage and affixed the Defendant’s seal. The said description states that the Plaintiff’s brokerage remuneration is KRW 14,355,00 (=13,050,000 (=1,450,000), and value-added tax 1,305,000).

Meanwhile, Article 7 of the sales contract of this case provides that “A practicing licensed real estate agent is not liable for a seller or buyer’s nonperformance of this contract.” In addition, a brokerage fee shall be paid by both parties to this contract at the same time as this contract is concluded, and a brokerage fee shall be paid even if this contract is invalidated, cancelled, or cancelled without any intention or negligence by the practicing licensed real estate agent

E. The Defendant and the buyer agreed to succeed to the lease of the instant real estate while concluding the instant sales contract.

However, as of the outstanding payment date of the real estate purchase price, there was a dispute over the remainder amount of the real estate in this case between the Defendant and the buyer regarding the lease deposit and overdue loan disposal of the real estate in this case.

F. The Defendant asserted that the buyer rescinded the instant sales contract due to the buyer’s refusal, and filed a lawsuit against the buyer seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate.