1. The defendant's Suwon District Court rendered the defendant's assistance to the plaintiff on August 21, 2015 for brokerage commission fee No. 2015Guj2394 on August 21, 2015.

1. Basic facts - The Plaintiff operated D hotel in the land and building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and sold all of the instant real estate and the instant tourist hotel business to Nonparty E and third parties for KRW 16,250,000,000 on June 1, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as "the sale of this case". - At the time of the preparation of the sales contract of this case, the defendant attended as a broker and stated the defendant's name and affixed the defendant's seal on the brokerage column of the above sales contract -

The Plaintiff paid KRW 160,875,000 as the brokerage commission for the instant sales contract.

In light of the fact that 0.9% of the total purchase price is determined as a brokerage commission for 160,875,000 won added value-added tax (written evidence No. 9), and that the seller and both parties pay the brokerage commission to the sales contract (written evidence No. 8) of this case, it is reasonable to view that the brokerage commission to be paid by the seller, separately from the buyer, is KRW 160,875,00.

Meanwhile, around August 2015, the Defendant filed a request against the Plaintiff for payment order claiming payment of the above brokerage commission under the court No. 2015 tea2394. Accordingly, the payment order issued by the above court on August 21, 2015 became final and conclusive on September 10, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 8, 9, each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion of this case is F that actually mediated the sale and purchase of this case, and the defendant merely lent the name of the licensed real estate agent in return for a certain price from F.

Since the defendant did not act as a broker for the sale of this case, the right to claim the payment of the brokerage commission did not occur.

In addition, the Defendant’s act of lending the name of the real estate agent violates Article 7(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, and the instant real estate brokerage agreement is null and void.

B. Determination 1 is led by F to the brokerage of the instant sales contract.