1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On January 15, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted against Defendant B, who introduced 1,219 square meters of the land D in Gyeyang-gu, Soyang-gu (hereinafter “instant land”) to Defendant B, and purchased this and recommended the sale or lease of a residential facility on the ground.

In consultation with the above defendant several times, the plaintiff promoted the brokerage of the land of this case and the construction of neighborhood living facilities. In that process, the plaintiff presented the above defendant the land purchase cost of KRW 5,790,704,00 and the brokerage fee of KRW 52,197,00,00, which are 0.9%, an agreement was reached between the plaintiff and the defendants on the payment of such brokerage fee.

On February 15, 2017, the Plaintiff consulted with land owners E and F on the price and conditions of E and F through a seller’s broker, and concluded a sales contract by setting the purchase price of KRW 5.8 billion on February 23, 2017.

After September 6, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer of the land in this case was completed in the future of Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B from the above land owners.

Therefore, according to the above agreement on the payment of brokerage commission, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 52.2 million, which is equivalent to KRW 0.9% of the purchase price of the instant land, as brokerage commission.

2. The Plaintiff, among the Plaintiff and the Defendants, mediated the sale and purchase of the instant land only by entering the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-6 of the Plaintiff’s evidence and witness G’s testimony

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to receive a brokerage commission, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 4 and 1 evidence, each sales contract written as of February 23, 2017 and as of July 20, 2017 with respect to the land of this case is merely the fact that the name of another person, not the plaintiff, is written as a broker.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants cannot be accepted in entirety, and they are dismissed.