1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,620,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 6% per annum from March 22, 2016 to February 14, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, arranged a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) to sell KRW 5,300,000,000 (the contract amount of KRW 50,000,000,000 paid at the time of the contract, and the balance of KRW 5,250,00,000,000, which is paid at the time of the contract, to D, for the purchase price of KRW 5,495 square meters and its ground buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”).

B. The Defendant did not grant D the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate, and E (F) who received the claim from D, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to the effect that he would return the down payment amounting to KRW 50,000,000 as the Busan District Court Branch Branch Decision 2016Ga283, Busan District Court Decision 205283.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers), witness E's testimony, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay 47,700,000 won (5,300,000,000 x 0.9%) for the brokerage fee of the sales contract of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The legal relationship between a real estate broker and a client is the same as a delegation relationship under the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da55350, May 11, 1993). In a case where an agreement on the amount of remuneration is made under a delegation contract, in principle, a mandatary may, in principle, claim the amount of remuneration in full. However, in light of the background of delegation, the process and difficulty of delegated duties, the degree of invested efforts, the specific benefits the mandator gained from his/her duties, and all other circumstances revealed in the pleadings, when special circumstances exist to deem that the amount of remuneration in question unfairly excessive and thus contravenes the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of equity, he/she may claim only the amount of

(Supreme Court Decision 2000Da50190 Decided April 12, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2011Da107900 Decided April 12, 2012.