1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the allegations emphasized or added by the plaintiff and the defendant in this court. Thus, they are cited as it is by the main text of Article

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Defendant first demanded that the Plaintiff conclude the contract between the owner and the Plaintiff; and (b) the Plaintiff demanded that the consulting price be set at the time of the instant consulting agreement, such as demanding necessary funds in addition to the price under the instant consulting agreement, etc.; and (c) at the time of the instant consulting agreement, the Defendant agreed to compensate for damages in superior status to the Plaintiff; and (d) the purpose of the instant consulting agreement is also to demand the Defendant to make the contract for construction.

② The Defendant introduced the Plaintiff to the owner, but did not contribute to the conclusion of the contract, and was unaware of the fact that the contract was concluded itself, and thus, the Defendant did not perform its duty under the instant consulting agreement.

③ In view of the ratio of the estimated amount of debt to the estimated amount of debt, the amount of consulting agreements that the Defendant agreed to receive from the Plaintiff is 4% of the price of construction in addition to the down payment of KRW 10,000,000,000. In the event the Defendant fails to perform its obligations under the consulting agreement of this case, the estimated amount of compensation for damages is 30,000,000, and the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages if the Defendant fails to refund the down payment within seven days in addition to the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligations under the consulting agreement of this case.

Therefore, the estimated amount of damages under the instant consulting agreement should not be reduced because it is not unfairly excessive.

B. We examine the allegation 1 above.

The Defendant is superior to the Plaintiff in light of the developments leading up to the conclusion of the instant consulting agreement, the details of the agreement, etc. indicated in the judgment of the first instance court cited above.