1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 40,700,000 won and each year from December 1, 2017 to December 4, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 10, 2017, the Defendants, co-owners of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Land and the building “E gas station” on its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) concluded a sales contract with respect to the instant real estate with the following content, while the Plaintiff was present at the G’s real estate agent office mediating the buyer and the F Co., Ltd., and G’s real estate agent office mediating the Defendants as the seller.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The purchase price of KRW 0: KRW 9.25 billion: The payment period of KRW 9.25 billion: On the date of the contract deposit - the intermediate payment of KRW 9.9 billion on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 1.0 billion on November 13, 2017, and the remainder of KRW 1.5 billion on November 30, 2017, the buyer succeeds to the loan of KRW 5.85 billion on November 30, 2017.

B. On the day of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff agreed to pay 5,500,000 won (i.e., KRW 9.25,000,000 x 0.6%) with the Defendants to pay brokerage commission fee of KRW 0.6% (i.e., KRW 9.25,500,000 x 0.6%) on the day of the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant brokerage agreement”), while imposing value-added tax separately.

C. On November 30, 2017, the Defendants received the remainder KRW 1.5 billion from the purchaser while the Plaintiff was accompanied, and received the full payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Both claims;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the sales contract of this case was concluded as a broker, and the Defendants, the co-owners of the real estate of this case, and the co-owners of the brokerage agreement of this case, are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a commission of 61,050,000 won [=5,000 won = 9.25,50 million won x 0.6% x 0.6%] equivalent to 0.6% of the transaction value, including value-added tax, and damages for delay from the day after the Defendants received the remainder of the sales contract to the day of full payment.

B. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion 1 did not state that the Plaintiff would divide H and brokerage fees, the wife of the Defendants, and set the brokerage fee rate at 0.6%.