All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs as to the primary claim, the court below rejected the primary claim against the defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant deceivings the deceased to pay the commission to the broker of the First Sale Contract of this case or the purchaser company employees, or that the deceased caused a mistake as to the purpose of the payment of this case as above, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the aforementioned determination by the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by evading judgment

2. As to the Plaintiffs and Defendant’s grounds of appeal regarding the conjunctive claim

A. In principle, in a case where an agreement on the amount of remuneration is agreed upon in a delegation contract, a mandatary may claim in principle the amount of full agreed remuneration. However, in light of the circumstances surrounding the delegation, the process and difficulty of performing the delegated duties, the degree of effort made by the mandator, specific benefits that the delegating person gains in the course of performing his/her duties, and other circumstances revealed in the pleading, he/she may claim only the amount of remuneration within the extent deemed reasonable exceptionally in exceptional cases where there are special circumstances to deem that the amount of agreed remuneration unfairly excessive

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da107900, Apr. 12, 2012). (B)

The lower court partly accepted the conjunctive claim against the Defendant for the following reasons.

1. The defendant of this case.