The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

. Determination as to the cause of the claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is an individual certified broker who operates an officially certified broker office in accordance with subparagraph D in the Suwon-si District C and in the complex.

2) On September 30, 2019, the Plaintiff and F, the seller, and the Defendant, the buyer, arranged a sales contract for G Apartment-gu G Apartment-ho (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

3) As to the instant sales contract, “mediation remuneration” shall be paid by both parties to the contract at the time of the conclusion of this contract.

The phrase "(Article 7 of the terms of the contract in paragraph 2)" and attached description of the object of brokerage is "4,235,000 won for brokerage fees (including additional taxes), calculation details: 770,000 won *0.5% for brokerage fees and 0.5% for brokerage fees according to the rate prescribed by the ordinance of the City/Do or for the rate limit prescribed by the ordinance of the City/Do for the client and the authorizedr of the opening of the opening of the business may be imposed separately on the basis of the rate that the broker and the authorizedr of the opening of the business agree with each other.

“.......”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole theory

B. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the brokerage remuneration of KRW 4,235,00 and delayed damages as stipulated in the sales contract of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff's claim was unfair since there was no agreement on brokerage remuneration with the plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to reverse the recognition, and there is no counter-proof.

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The Defendant paid 2,695,000 won to the Plaintiff.

The argument is asserted.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the defendant paid 2,695,00 won to the plaintiff on December 10, 2019. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is with merit.

(c)

Therefore, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff the unpaid brokerage fee of 1.