1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

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

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

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "It is difficult to see that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay the value-added tax by 3% of the purchase price in light of the plaintiff's details of brokerage, the progress and difficulty of brokerage, the value of the object of brokerage, and the specific profits from the transaction, etc., as seen earlier, as seen earlier," and the plaintiff alleged that the defendant agreed to pay the value-added tax explicitly according to the general practice of transaction. However, in the case of real estate brokerage, there are general practices of transaction in which the purchaser bears value-added tax."

Since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant agreed to bear value-added tax, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, “this decision” shall be added, and the “this decision” of the 8th sentence shall be changed to “the first instance judgment,” and the following judgments shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that the Defendant’s assertion in the trial is identical to the grounds for the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments:

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff, in fact, lent the name of licensed real estate agent to H, and H was in charge of brokerage by using the Plaintiff’s qualification as a licensed real estate agent.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the name of a licensed real estate agent to H solely on the basis of the statements in the evidence Nos. 5 and 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts to the plaintiff that part of the brokerage commission was paid to the plaintiff as part of the brokerage commission.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant paid part of the brokerage commission to the plaintiff only with the statement of No. 9, 1,000,000 won by the statement of No. 9.