1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims added by this court are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal and this court.

1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is as follows, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The judgment of the court of first instance changed the term “350 million won” from 350 million won to 330 million won after deducting 11550,000 won withheld from 350 million won. 2. Determination on the claim for refund of commission fees

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since there was an obvious agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to return commission fees on or around April 2015, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff commission fees and damages for delay that were already paid pursuant to Article 5(4) of the instant contract. 2) The Defendant is not obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the commission fees and damages for delay that were paid pursuant to Article 5(4) of the instant contract. Thus, there is no possibility of performing the Defendant’s duty to write, or there is no amount written by the Defendant after the conclusion of the instant contract. Thus, the Defendant’

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the commission fees and damages for delay already paid to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 5 (4) of the contract of this case.

3) In the absence of such agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is reasonable to view that Article 5(4) of the instant contract is an agreement to return commission fees by supplementary interpretation. (b) Whether there exists an agreement to return commission fees already paid under Article 5(4) of the instant contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant around April 2015, the fact that there was a discussion between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to terminate the instant contract and to return part of the fee, excluding taxes, etc., paid to the Plaintiff, around 350 million won.

2. However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 15 as a whole, are concluded upon the dispute over facts around April 2015.