1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Eul Corporation and incidental appeal against the defendant Eul Corporation B.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as follows, in addition to the addition of either the plaintiff and the defendants to make a final decision or add the judgment in accordance with the allegations made by the court of first instance, the reasoning of this Court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

Forms 2 through 14 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be stated in the following manner:

C) The right to claim remuneration from a sales brokerage as to whether a sales contract has been concluded due to the Plaintiff’s act of brokerage arises under the condition that the sales contract is constituted as a broker. Thus, insofar as the sales contract has not been concluded as a broker, even if the broker has made an endeavor (see Supreme Court Decision 4289DaDa81, Apr. 12, 1956). However, even if the contract has been formed as a broker, it shall not be deemed that a real estate broker may claim remuneration equivalent to the rate of his/her endeavor, even though the broker has made an endeavor (see Supreme Court Decision 4289DaDa81, Apr. 12, 1956).

In the instant case, as seen earlier, the Defendants’ sales contract was concluded on April 9, 2013 and concluded after a considerable period of time has elapsed from the acts deemed the Plaintiff’s brokerage act.

However, the following circumstances are acknowledged based on the facts and the evidence mentioned above.