1. The plaintiff's incidental appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant and the incidental costs of appeal.

1. The basic fact is that the Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent who runs real estate brokerage business under the trade name of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Licensed Real Estate Agents under subparagraph D of the business.

On March 27, 2018, the Defendant entered into a contract with F to purchase KRW 1,395,00,000 between F and Jongno-gu Seoul apartment G on March 30, 2018 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Defendant acquired ownership of the said real estate by transfer.

The letter of confirmation of the object of brokerage signed and sealed by the defendant at the time of entering into the instant sales contract (hereinafter referred to as "the letter of confirmation of the object of brokerage") may be imposed value-added tax separately on the basis of the rates determined by the agreement between the client and the practicing licensed real estate agent in accordance with the details of the sales contract 13,810,500 won (including value-added tax 1,255,500 won, including value-added tax 1,395,00,000 won x 0.90%, and the brokerage fees shall be in accordance with the rates prescribed by City/Do municipal ordinance

"....."

As an intermediary fee for the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff received KRW 10,000,000 from F on March 30, 2018, respectively, and KRW 5,00,000 from the Defendant on April 2, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the sales contract of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to determine the brokerage remuneration of KRW 10,741,50 (i.e., KRW 1,395,00,000 x rate of KRW 0.70 x value-added tax 1.1) at the time of the sales contract of the Plaintiff’s assertion, but at the Defendant’s request on the remainder payment date, reduced the brokerage remuneration of KRW 10,000. The Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder after deducting the brokerage remuneration of KRW 5,00,000 which was already paid from the said brokerage remuneration of KRW 10,00,000 and the delay damages therefrom.

There is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the brokerage fee, and 5,000,000 won paid by the defendant is appropriate for the brokerage fee, so additional brokerage fee shall be paid.