1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who falls under the following amount of money ordered to be paid.

1. Summary of the Plaintiff and the Defendants’ Claim

A. On August 20, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded an exclusive service contract for selling real estate by proxy with the Defendants (hereinafter “instant service contract”) and provided services accordingly, and concluded a sales contract on August 5, 2010 with the Defendants selling land at KRW 18,045.

Accordingly, with respect to the Defendants, the principal suit is seeking payment of KRW 216,90,00,000 calculated by subtracting KRW 180,000 already received from the Defendants from the service costs of KRW 396,99,00 under the instant service contract.

B. The Defendants’ instant service contract is a brokerage contract subject to the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions. Since the Plaintiff is not entitled to establish a brokerage office, the Plaintiff’s agreement that the Defendants paid the service fee to the Plaintiff under the instant service contract is null and void.

Accordingly, with respect to the plaintiff as a counterclaim, the return of KRW 210,000,000 already paid to the plaintiff is sought.

2. The instant service contract

A. On August 20, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into the instant service contract with the Defendants, and there is no dispute between the parties. The Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions (hereinafter “Licensed Real Estate Agents Act”) which was in force at the time stipulated that “mediation” means arranging the transaction, exchange, lease and other acts of acquisition, loss and transfer of rights between the parties to the transaction regarding the objects of land, etc.

Whether a certain act constitutes a brokerage act shall be determined by objectively viewing the broker's act from the perspective of social norms in light of the purport of the provisions of the law, which aims to protect the parties to the transaction.

B. (Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5271 Delivered on November 12, 2004).

Facts of recognition

Each description and image of Gap evidence 1 to 35 and Eul evidence 3 (including a branch number for those with a branch number), H of a trial witness,