1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent with the trade name of “C” in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On May 26, 2016, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with D to purchase KRW 1,07,000,000,000 owned KRW 873 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and accordingly, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land on July 29, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On April 19, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff introduced the instant land at the request of the Defendant for the brokerage of the purchase of the neighboring land in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, and conducted negotiations with the seller on the seller’s side and the sales price.

The defendant concluded the sales contract of this case at the seller's brokerage office without excluding the plaintiff for the purpose of not paying brokerage fees.

Since the sales contract of this case was concluded by the plaintiff's efforts for brokerage, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the brokerage fee prescribed in the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act.

B. The Defendant’s broker liable to pay the brokerage commission may claim the payment of the brokerage commission only when the contract has been concluded between the client and the other party by his/her own act of brokerage. Even if the broker has made an endeavor to do so, insofar as the contract has not been concluded by his/her act of brokerage, the broker may not claim the brokerage remuneration equivalent to the ratio of his/her

However, even though the contract has been almost at the same stage due to the act of brokerage of the broker, the client and the other party conspired with each other to avoid the brokerage remuneration, and they concluded a direct contract without excluding the broker.

In spite of the fact that the broker plays a critical role in the formation of the contract, the broker is not responsible for it.