1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent who operates the “E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” on the D3rd floor located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Busan.

B. On February 3, 2015, the Defendant and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant, etc.”) concluded a contract to pay each of the intermediate payment KRW 150 million on February 16, 2015, and the remainder amount of KRW 920 million on March 6, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) to the Plaintiff at the time of payment of the remainder of the transaction price as a brokerage commission in relation to the conclusion of the instant sales contract by Nonparty F, and the Defendant, etc. paid each of the remainder amount of KRW 90 million to the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. According to the instant sales contract, the Defendant, etc. paid F the down payment of KRW 50 million on February 3, 2015, which was the date of entering into the contract, and KRW 150 million on February 16, 2015, the intermediate payment of KRW 150 million on February 16, 2015, and the remainder of KRW 920 million was extended and paid on March 12, 2015.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 2, Eul's 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination

A. In full view of the above basic facts and the purport of the entire argument as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, etc. is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the brokerage commission of the instant sales contract amounting to KRW 10,080,000 (i.e., the sales commission amount of KRW 1120,000 x the brokerage commission rate of KRW 0.9%)

B. As to the determination of the Defendant, etc.’s assertion, the Defendant, etc. agreed that the Plaintiff would have the acquisition tax to be incurred by acquiring each of the instant land, etc. at the time of concluding the instant sales contract, but the Defendant, etc. confirmed on March 5, 2015 that the acquisition tax was not reduced or exempted, and accordingly, claimed that the Defendant, etc. did not receive a brokerage commission to be responsible for the burden of acquisition tax.