The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

. The purport of the claim is.

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the parts dismissed or added as set forth in the following 2.1. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. The second page 1 of the second page of the judgment of the court of first instance stated the phrase “as to the notarial deeds No. 1366 of the notarial deeds of 2018” as “as to each of the above notarial deeds,” the addition 1) the fifth page of the judgment of the court of first instance “as to the notarial deeds of 10 million won or KRW 120 million” added below.

Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act provides that "business of brokerage" refers to the business of brokerage and receiving a certain remuneration at another person's request. Here, "business of brokerage" refers to the business of brokerage and the business of brokerage" should be determined according to ordinary social norms in light of various circumstances, such as the purpose, size, frequency, duration, mode, etc. of brokerage act. Thus, if a person without a licensed real estate agent's license is not "business of brokerage" such as a case where a person acts as a broker with an opportunity for an incidental opportunity for a transaction between others, it shall not be deemed that a brokerage commission payment agreement is in violation of mandatory law and shall not be deemed null and void. However, if there are circumstances to deem that the agreement of brokerage commission or the fee of delegation contract unfairly excessive and thus contravenes the principle of good faith and equity under the Civil Act, only the reduced amount of remuneration may be claimed within the reasonable scope.

Supreme Court Decision 201Da1449 Decided September 6, 2007