1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the first instance, is as follows: (a) adding to the 5th judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as “additional Judgment 2.2”; and (b) adding to the front part of “the Defendant’s defense of set-off against this case,” “if not,” and (c) eliminating “the Defendant’s defense of set-off” in the 6th judgment of the court of first instance (as long as the Defendant’s remaining assertion is accepted, no judgment is made on the Defendant’s remaining assertion)”; and (d) citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. First of all, we examine the defendant's objection to the completion of prescription.

In full view of the purport of entry and pleading as to Gap evidence No. 2, it is reasonable to view that the defendant is a corporation engaged in real estate sales, sales, sales agency, etc., and that the defendant's act of selling unsold apartments in accordance with the sales agency contract of this case constitutes a commercial activity as provided in Article 46 or 47 of the Commercial Act, which is conducted for brokerage or business.

Article 64 of the Commercial Act shall also apply to a claim that is a commercial activity only for one of the parties, and Article 64 of the Commercial Act shall also apply or apply by analogy to a claim that is equivalent to a claim that is derived from a commercial activity in terms of the need for prompt resolution of transaction relations.

A claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the service price sought by the Plaintiff is arising in connection with such commercial activities and thus requires a prompt resolution of transaction relations, and thus extinctive prescription expires five years after the date on which it can be exercised as prescribed in Article 64 of the Commercial Act

I would like to say.

Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67672 Decided February 28, 2013, which ruled that an excessive claim for return of real estate brokerage commission is a commercial bond and a five-year extinctive prescription period is applicable. The Plaintiff is Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4633 Decided May 10, 2012.