1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The Taewon Industrial Development Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a sales agent of Sungnam-si and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”) constructed by Daewoonam-si Construction Co., Ltd., and the Defendant B is an employee of the non-di SP partnership (hereinafter “non-diS”) who contracts the above sales agent business from the light space (hereinafter “the light space”) that the Defendant Co., Ltd. contracted the above sales agent business.

D On August 31, 2015, an Asian Trust Co., Ltd. (a seller and an implementing trustee) set forth 115 commercial buildings of this case as sales price of KRW 723,307,00 (including value-added tax) and sold in lots.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Evidence Nos. 1 and 4, Evidence Nos. 1 and 4, Evidence No. D for the trial of the party, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff agreed with Defendant B, who is an employee of the Defendant Company, to introduce the Plaintiff’s applicant for the sale of the instant commercial building and receive a referral fee equivalent to 2% of the sales price from the Defendant Company.

Accordingly, the plaintiff introduced D and concluded the sales contract of this case 115.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay the Plaintiff the introduction fee of KRW 13,860,00 (=693,000,000 x 2%).

B. Defendant Company is not related to this case.

The defendant company awarded a contract for the sale of the light spaces, and the defendant B is a person employed in S. S. as a human resources service company in the light space.

The Defendant Company No. 115 stated in the reply submitted on June 3, 2016 as 116, but deposited the sales agency fee of 18,093,537 won in the amount of clerical error in 115.

Plaintiff

The introduction fee of the argument should not be the case that the plaintiff and the defendant B personally - regardless of the light space.

C. Defendant B is the case.