1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) among the principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate consulting contract with the Defendant who is engaged in the real estate consulting business, etc. (hereinafter “instant consulting contract”) in order to purchase 12 real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Goyang-dong, Yongsan-gu, U.S. in the auction procedure for exercising the real estate security right of Goyang-gu, Goyang-si, the High District Court (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), and the main contents are as follows.

1) The plaintiff shall entrust a consulting service on real estate, and the defendant shall provide the maximum services to the plaintiff after examining all matters such as the analysis of the rights of the goods requested, and shall actively cooperate and respond to the advice on the real estate requested by the plaintiff (Article 1(2)). The defendant shall refer to the data of the specifications of the goods sold in a court, and shall not be liable for any matters other than the above data. The defendant shall present the price to be referred to the plaintiff. However, the final price determination shall be based on the plaintiff's judgment and responsibility,

(5) (3) The consulting fee is KRW 100,000,000 as the price for the provision of services for the services under Article 1 (Article 7) (Article 7). (4) The delivery of an object under the consulting agreement of this case shall cooperate with the defendant on the responsibility of the plaintiff, and all expenses such as the execution cost and the director cost shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(Article 8). (b)

The third sale date and its minimum sale price of the auction procedure of this case were scheduled to be KRW 3,502,131,000 on May 29, 2014, and the defendant presented KRW 4,500,000 as the bid price to the plaintiff by analyzing data such as the specifications of the goods sold in this case.

The plaintiff tried to apply for a bid of KRW 4,027,00,000 on the third sale date of the auction procedure of this case. However, the representative director of the defendant, who accompanied the plaintiff's director G, requested an increase of KRW 10,000,000, and the plaintiff eventually requested an increase of KRW 4,037.