1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as stated in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the defendant’s additional determination as to the assertion that is emphasized by the trial of the first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion and judgment 1) as to the principal claim. The defendant did not request the plaintiff to act as a broker with respect to the land No. 1 of this case, and the plaintiff and D, etc. who received a brokerage request from D agreed to sell the land No. 1 of this case, and the terms of payment of brokerage commission under the sales contract No. 1 of this case are merely limited to the vice character that did not reflect the defendant's intent, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant, who did not request brokerage, did not pay brokerage commission to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the brokerage commission under the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act or the First Sale Contract of this case is unreasonable.

(2) In addition, the first sale contract of this case was sexually formed by the plaintiff's recommendation to avoid capital gains tax, and it was erroneous that capital gains tax can be avoided to the defendant by participating in the preparation of a multilateral contract and the preparation of a cash storage certificate.

However, the Plaintiff reported the sales price of the instant 1 sales contract to the competent Gu office as KRW 2.16 billion, not the sales price under the contract, but the actual sales price of KRW 2.58 billion, which was the actual sales price, to the competent Gu office. The Defendant rescinded the agreement on the 1 sales contract of this case and paid damages to D on the ground that it could not achieve the purpose of evading capital gains tax originally intended.

Therefore, as long as the contract for the first sale of this case was rescinded by intention or negligence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is the defendant pursuant to the proviso of Article 32 (1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.