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

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

the purport and purpose of the claim;

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following supplementary judgments as to the part on which the plaintiff contests as the grounds for appeal by this court, and thus, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with the Defendants, the owner of the building, to advertise the sale of the instant loan, and to collect KRW 10 million per household (including value added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) from which the sales contract was completed in return for consulting, such as ordering and managing the preparation of the sales contract through a neighboring certified intermediary.

B. According to the above sales agency contract, the Plaintiff promoted the sale of the instant loan through H and the Internet, and provided details to the sales agency by receiving inquiries from the neighboring certified brokerage office on several occasions. As a result, the entire 28 households of the instant loan was sold in lots.

(c)

Therefore, the Defendants, regardless of whether the Plaintiff was jointly and severally involved in the conclusion of the sales contract for a specific household and caused the sale in lots, were to pay the commission fee to all the above 28 households, but only the 4 households directly involved in the Plaintiff’s conclusion of the sales contract, were to be paid the commission fee. The Defendants, regardless of whether the Plaintiff had directly participated in the conclusion of the sales contract for the specific household, seek for the payment of the fee of KRW 26

3. We examine the judgment, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance trial showed evidence submitted in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff agreed to receive the commission for the household, the sale of which was completed in return for public relations and consulting services, regardless of whether the Plaintiff acted as a broker for the instant loan sales contract with the Defendants.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

Rather, A.