1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim extended by this court, is modified as follows.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal under paragraph (2) below. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which has been cut, shall be deemed to have been "dried" of No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

After the 4th judgment of the first instance court, “B No. 3-1, 2, and 8” was added to “B No. 4-3, Eul No. 5-1, 5-8, and Eul No. 6-8”

The judgment of "B. Judgment" in the last sentence of the judgment of the first instance is not more than "B. Judgment" as follows:

“B. B. 1) A broker may claim the payment of a brokerage commission only when a contract has been concluded between the client and the other party by his/her own act of brokerage, and even if the broker has made an endeavor as a broker, unless the contract has been concluded by his/her act of brokerage, he/she may not claim a brokerage commission equivalent to the ratio of the efforts.

However, even though the contract has been almost at the same stage due to the act of brokerage of the broker, the client and the other party conspired with each other to avoid the brokerage commission and concluded a direct contract without excluding the broker.

In special circumstances, such as where an act of brokerage has been interrupted due to a cause not attributable to the broker, and the broker has failed to participate in the preparation of the final contract, etc., the broker may claim payment of brokerage commission corresponding to the degree of the act of brokerage already performed by the broker, in light of the purport of Article 686 of the Civil Act and Article 61 of the Commercial Act and the principle of good faith, etc.

2. We examine this case in light of the above legal principles.

The above facts of recognition, Gap evidence No. 11 to 13, witness E of the trial, witness E of the court, witness F of the trial court, witness of the trial court, and witness of D's partial testimony and the whole purport of the pleadings.