The Defendants jointly share KRW 2,00,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 17, 2019 to September 9, 2020.

1. Determination on the claim for refund of brokerage commission

A. The Defendants, while running a brokerage business without registering the establishment of a brokerage office, received KRW 2 million under the pretext of brokerage commission from D on July 15, 2017. [Grounds for recognition] 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4-1, 9-1, 2, 11, 12-1, 13-1, 14-1 through 3, 15, 16-1, 2, 16-1, 2, 2, 25-1, 205, and 200,000 won under the pretext of brokerage commission. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff directly issued the Defendants the evidence under the pretext of brokerage commission, 3,00,000 won under the pretext of the Defendants, 14-1, 13-3, 14-1 or 3, 14-1, 16-1, 25, 25-2, 301, 400,000

B. Since the agreement between the Defendants, other than a licensed real estate agent, mediating a sales contract as a real estate brokerage business without registering the establishment of a brokerage office and the Plaintiff’s agreement on the payment of brokerage commission concluded with the Plaintiff is null and void in violation of compulsory law, the Defendants jointly are liable to jointly pay to the Plaintiff the commission of brokerage fee of KRW 2 million and to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum from January 17, 2019 to September 9, 2020, which is the date when the judgment is rendered by the Plaintiff, to dispute over the existence and scope of the commission.

2. On January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff sought the Defendants’ office on January 17, 2019 to inquire about the circumstances where the authorization procedure of real estate purchased through the Defendants’ brokerage is delayed, as described in paragraph (1). Defendant C’s clocket, and the Plaintiff’s clock away from the Plaintiff’s office, and forcibly sealed the Plaintiff out of the building, so the Plaintiff’s left-hand body, flick, flick, and flick.