1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,750,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 30, 2015 to August 25, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant, who is a licensed real estate agent, to sell the answer C, 4,599 square meters of land owned by Sejong Special Self-Governing City.

B. On January 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) concluded a contract to sell the said real estate in KRW 1.25 million, which was calculated as KRW 900,000 per square meter against D.

C. On January 29, 2015, the Defendant deposited KRW 12,50,000,000 as a down payment due to the death of the contract and the deposit of KRW 12,50,000,000,000,000,000 to E’s account that the Plaintiff mediated the buyer, along with the Plaintiff, remitted KRW 5,00,000 to F’s account as the Defendant’s creditor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness E and D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant arranged a sales contract and caused the plaintiff to transfer to the defendant's account at the end of the defendant is the brokerage commission that the defendant received.

Therefore, the defendant should return to the plaintiff the limited amount of KRW 1,1250,000,000,000, which is the maximum amount of brokerage commission prescribed by the law, as unjust enrichment.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant: (a) sold the instant real estate at KRW 80,000 per ordinary day to the Defendant; and (b) requested brokerage to the effect that the remainder is a brokerage commission; and (c) the Defendant concluded a contract to sell the instant real estate at KRW 90,000 per ordinary day.

Of the amount corresponding to the difference between the buyer and the seller, E paid 45 million won out of the transfer income tax to be additionally borne by the plaintiff as brokerage commission and advisory fee to the defendant.

In the end, the defendant did not receive any money from the plaintiff as the intermediary commission, so it did not make unjust enrichment.

C. In full view of the witness E, part of D’s testimony, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant is the seller’s broker, who participated in the instant sales contract as the buyer, and the contract deposit on January 29, 2015.