1. The Defendant’s KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, as well as 5% per annum from January 12, 2018 to June 25, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates consulting business for corporate mergers and acquisitions. The Defendant is a company that conducts corporate division, separate disclosure, separate sale, consultation for share exchange, mediation and brokerage business for corporate mergers and acquisitions, mergers and acquisitions of businesses, attracting investments, etc.

On the other hand, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) is a company that manufactures and sells precise parts for information and communications-related devices.

B. On September 30, 2014, D(ju), E, and F, a major shareholder of the instant company, sold the shares of 1,439,739 shares (5% of the total shares) and management rights to G in KRW 1,750,350,158.

Accordingly, the KG becomes the largest shareholder of the company in this case, and at the same time it has acquired management rights.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including paper numbers), the witness H's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) asserts the following as follows, and the Plaintiff primarily sought compensation for damages under the brokerage contract for the acquisition of the instant company, and sought compensation for damages incurred by the wrongful destruction of the said brokerage contract.

Under the premise that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a brokerage contract for the acquisition of the instant company, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the above brokerage commission as liquidated damages in the event that the said brokerage contract is terminated even among the above brokerage contract, and the Defendant entered into an underwriting contract with the instant company introduced by the Plaintiff within 12 months, by deciding that the brokerage commission under the above brokerage contract will be 3% of the acquisition price of the instant company as stated in the advisory service contract (Evidence A No. 11-2) and the Defendant would not promote the acquisition of the said company. The said brokerage contract with the Plaintiff is determined to suspend the above company acquisition procedure at will and not promote any further acquisition.