Of the judgment of the first instance court, with respect to the Plaintiff, KRW 91 million and its related thereto from August 22, 2013 to December 24, 2014.

Details of land transactions and waiver of the purchase price;

A. On September 24, 201, the Plaintiff entered into an exclusive delegation agreement with the Defendant who is not qualified as a licensed real estate agent on September 24, 201 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and delegated the sale of the Plaintiff’s land to the Defendant.

B. According to Article 2 of the instant arrangement, the Plaintiff paid 35,000 won per 3.3 square meters per land sold by the Defendant in return for the purchase and sale of land in return for the purchase and sale of land.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid several remuneration to the Defendant.

C. On the other hand, on April 6, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the Republic of Korea Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, and six parcels owned by H, and on the other hand, it was not good between H and ordinary. Therefore, the Plaintiff, instead of the Defendant, entered into a real estate sales contract with the Defendant as the purchaser.

On the date of concluding a sales contract, the Plaintiff paid 10 million won and intermediate payment to H via the Defendant. D.

As the Plaintiff failed to pay the balance by June 30, 2012, which is the remainder date stipulated under the above real estate sales contract, the Defendant prepared and delivered a performance note stating that “The payment deadline shall be extended by up to August 30, 2012, but the payment deadline shall be extended by up to August 30, 2012, and if the remainder is not paid up to that time, the down payment and the intermediate payment already paid shall be waived” (hereinafter “instant performance note”).

The Plaintiff was unable to pay the balance within the extended payment period as above.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 and 14 through 16 (including each number if any), and the plaintiff's assertion as to the violation of the mandatory law to claim the return of unjust enrichment of the whole purport of the pleadings. The agreement of this case is an agreement on the payment of brokerage fees concluded by the defendant operating real estate brokerage business without qualification as a licensed real estate agent, which is a mandatory law.