1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a real estate licensed real estate agent, and the Defendant is a sales agency for the changed-gu B commercial building in Seongbuk-gu (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) implemented by ASdong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SSdong Co., Ltd.”).

B. On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the non-party company to purchase KRW 105 (exclusive area of KRW 47.56 square meters) of the instant commercial building in the amount of KRW 99,930,000 via the Defendant.

On the other hand, on January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) 1,379,460,000 won (a contract deposit: KRW 137,946,00; and (b) 1,379,460,000; and (c) 1,379,460,000 won (a contract deposit); (b) the intermediate payment company received an intermediate payment loan in the name of the buyer; (c) paid the loan interest on behalf of the buyer before the remainder payment date; and (d) the Plaintiff arranged a contract to sell the commercial building 215,000,000 won from the non-party company; and (d) received a payment of KRW 74,805,186,186 from the Defendant.

C. Since then, C and the non-party company agreed to terminate the sales contract for the instant commercial building 215. In relation to the termination thereof, the Plaintiff returned KRW 74 million to the Defendant on November 30, 2016 as the refund of the sales brokerage fee for the said commercial building. The non-party company returned KRW 137,946,000 paid as the down payment to C out of the sales price for the said commercial building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claims as to the cause of the claim and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that there was no reason attributable to the plaintiff as to the termination of the sales contract concerning 215 commercial buildings of this case, but the defendant promised to pay the brokerage commission again by demanding the return on the ground of the internal circumstances of the company. Thus, the plaintiff's husband and wife at the time of asserting that he agreed to temporarily refund the commission and did not seek the balance of 104, but did not refund the commission fee as requested by the defendant.