1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the defendant's assertion in this court, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Parts used or added;

A. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, in which the term “each person” in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is written, shall be deemed to read “each person”, and the term “public interest” shall be deemed to read “each person”.

B. The Defendants asserts to the effect that the contents of the instant agreement should be preferentially applied in accordance with the principle of priority of individual agreements or the principle of private autonomy, as the provisions of Article 4 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Act”) stipulate that the contents of the instant agreement should be preferentially applied, since the remainder payment under the instant agreement was not made, the Defendants did not have any obligation to pay brokerage fees to the Plaintiff.

Article 4 of the Terms and Conditions Act provides that "if an enterpriser and a customer have agreed on the matters stipulated in the terms and conditions differently from the contents of the terms and conditions, the agreed matters shall prevail over the terms and conditions." Thus, the principle of priority of individual agreements under Article 4 of the Terms and Conditions Act refers to the principle that where the contents of individual agreements and the provisions of the terms and conditions conflict with each other regarding the elements of a contract, the provisions of individual

In other words, the sales contract of this case and the agreement of this case were made on October 3, 2015 with the same seal, and Article 7 of the Act on the Brokerage Fee of the sales contract of this case does not assume responsibility for the seller or buyer's non-performance of this contract, and brokerage remuneration is the party to this contract at the same time as this contract is concluded.