The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial addition or modification as follows. Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition or amendment of the part in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be made to the amendment of the fourth to tenth parts as follows.

(2) In the case where the Plaintiff, a seller of the instant sales contract, has agreed to pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to 2% of the purchase price with a brokerage commission (in the case where the Plaintiff claimed a brokerage commission against C, the court recognized only 0.9% of the purchase price, which is the highest broker commission, after recognizing the fact that the contract was entered into by the Plaintiff against C), and (3) in addition to the circumstances where the Defendant suffered damages from the cancellation of the instant sales contract and the forfeiture of the down payment, it is reasonable to determine that the brokerage commission in relation to the instant sales contract is 0.7% of the purchase price. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff a brokerage commission in total of KRW 805 million (1.5 billion x 7%) and damages for delay.

Under the fourth sentence of the judgment of the first instance, the 5th instance court added the 5th sentence “20 million won on November 3, 2017,” and the 3.5 million won on November 2017, 2017,” and the 4th sentence below is modified as “total of 62 million won.” The 3.5 million won on November 20, 2017, which was 3.5 million won on November 20, 2017, among the 4th sentence of the first instance judgment.