1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is revoked, and the revoked part is revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant is the co-defendant C of the first instance court’s co-defendant; and (c) part of the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance, except for the Defendant’s new assertion in paragraph (3) below; and (d) the Defendant’s new assertion in the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the court of first instance. Therefore, this is cited by applying the main sentence of

2. The Enemy changed the entry of the Defendant on No. 6, No. 21, on the 6th page, into a company outside the country, and changed the entry into a company outside the country.

Part 3 to 21 of the 8th page (Article 3-2(b)) shall be written with the following parts:

B. Whether the price to be paid to the Plaintiff ought to be reduced. 1) If a non-licensed real estate agent does not engage in brokerage business, such as in a case where a person, who is not qualified as a licensed real estate agent, acts as a broker once on an opportunity to conduct a transaction between others, the agreement on the payment of brokerage commission does not violate the mandatory law and shall not be deemed null and void. However, if there are circumstances to deem that the agreement on the brokerage commission is unreasonably excessive and thus contravenes the principles of good faith and good faith or the principles of equity under the Civil Act, only

(2) In the event that a person eligible to act as a real estate broker and a non-party company concluded a sales contract between the Defendant and the non-party company with respect to each of the instant real estate in addition to the health stand in the instant case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da86525, Jun. 14, 2012) and the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments as set forth in subparagraphs 8 through 10, the following circumstances are acknowledged. In other words, if a person eligible to act as a real estate broker and the non-party company acted as a broker for a sales contract between the Defendant and the non-party company with respect to each of the instant real estate, the legal ceiling on the commission is KRW 32,40,000 (i.e., the total purchase price of each of the instant real estate in the instant case 3,60,000,000