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

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception that the part concerning the claim for damages, which was executed from 16th to 8th one (the part concerning the claim for real estate consulting fees), is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (as to the claim for damages, the plaintiff's side was aware of the registration of the seizure and E's arrears at the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance that the defendant did not breach the duty of due care in the process of confirming the amount in arrears, are justifiable)

2. Article 2 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act provides “The brokerage business subject to the regulation of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act” means “the business of arranging sale, exchange, lease, and other acts concerning the object of brokerage including real estate at another person’s request with respect to real estate, etc.” (Article 2 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act). Whether an act constitutes an act of brokerage shall not depend upon the actor’s subjective intent, but shall be determined according to whether the act is objectively deemed an act of brokerage of transaction in terms of social norms in view of social norms, rather than depending on whether the act is objectively deemed an act of brokerage of transaction. In addition, the said act of brokerage of real estate provides the so-called real estate consulting service, etc., which is subject to the regulation of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act.” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4572, Nov. 10, 2011). The Defendant prepared a separate real estate consulting service contract (a evidence No. 1, and 8 million won of cash receipts issued by the Plaintiff.

However, with respect to the contents of the service contract, it is stated that "the sales price of the housing of this case" is 4.5 billion won.