1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 37,125,00 with respect to the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from August 9, 2019 to November 15, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Defendants are buildings with a size of 560.6 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Co-owners (1/4 of each equity), June 10, 2019, G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “G”).

) The sales price of the instant real estate and KRW 7.5 billion (payment of KRW 750 million on the date of the contract, the balance of KRW 6.75 billion on the date of the contract, and the payment of KRW 6.75 billion on July 5, 2019). The seller’s side and the buyer’s intent contact or notification related to the instant contract are all known to the seller, and Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

2) The sales contract to the effect that the remaining buyers will act on behalf of the other buyers (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) G concluded the registration of ownership transfer on July 5, 2019 with respect to the instant real estate on the ground of sale on June 10, 2019.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, with respect to a building with a size of 198.5 square meters and above ground (hereinafter “I real estate”) in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, the sales contract was concluded on March 14, 2019 between I (seller) and G (Buyer) with respect to KRW 3 billion. At the time, the seller was the Plaintiff, and the buyer was the broker of the J Licensed Real Estate Agent Office (K).

C. The Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent operating the L Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, was involved before the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and M is the business adviser of the Defendant Company.

On July 18, 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendants a content-certified mail stating that “The Defendants, while mediating the instant real estate, concluded the instant sales contract without excluding the Plaintiff, violates the good faith principle, thereby paying brokerage fees.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s agent M will sell the instant real estate amounting to KRW 7.7 billion to G under the Plaintiff’s intermediary.