1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,79,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 21, 2016 to December 8, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff was requested from the Defendant for the purchase brokerage of one parcel outside Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu and its ground C main building (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On December 2, 2012, after the price adjustment, a sales contract was concluded for KRW 3.877 million for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and the performance of the sales contract was completed on December 18, 201 for the remainder payment and ownership transfer registration on December 18, 201.

C. At the time of the instant sales contract, the Defendant: “The brokerage remuneration and actual expenses of the broker fee and the amount calculation amount” column; “VAT: KRW 3,483,00,000; KRW 38,313,00; and the details of calculation: KRW 3,870,000: KRW 3,870,000; 0.0,000 x 0.9% (VAT)” attached to the description of confirmation of the object of the instant sales contract; and received one copy from D of the licensed real estate agent affiliated with the Plaintiff.

On December 4, 2015, prior to the payment date of the remainder, the Plaintiff, upon the Plaintiff’s request, issued to the Defendant a receipt stating that “the amount of KRW 15,00,000,000,00 as a brokerage commission,” which is part of the brokerage commission (including VAT), is KRW 38,000,000,000,000,000.”

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including branch numbers), Eul's evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the following facts revealed in the above facts of recognition: (a) the fee rate and the number of fees are indicated in the product verification description of the object of brokerage; (b) the Defendant affixs and seals thereon; (c) the receipt issued by the Plaintiff states some of the fee of KRW 38 million; (d) the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the commission fee of KRW 15 million; and (e) according to the evidence No. 4, the Defendant made a reply to the effect that the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the remaining fee for the message demanding the payment of the fee due date, etc., and that the Defendant is obligated to pay the fee any more.