1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The judgment of the court of this case and the judgment of the court of first instance, even if examining the newly submitted evidence in light of the allegations and the reasons that the plaintiff cited in the judgment of the court of first instance supplemented, are justifiable.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments.

2. Even if there is an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as alleged by the Plaintiff, in light of the following legal principles and circumstances revealed by the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff engaged in brokerage as an intention to continue to continue to exist.

Therefore, since the above fee agreement is null and void because it violates the mandatory law, the plaintiff's claim is not justified.

The real estate trade brokerage business may run a real estate agent or juristic person after the registration of establishment of a brokerage office is completed. In violation of this provision, an agreement on the payment of brokerage fees concluded with a trading party while mediating a real estate sales contract as a real estate brokerage business without the registration of establishment of a brokerage office is null and void in violation of the mandatory law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da75119, Dec. 23, 2010; 2010Da86525, Jun. 14, 2012). Whether a real estate agent business is engaged in brokerage under the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act should be determined according to ordinary social norms in light of various circumstances, such as the purpose of the brokerage business or the scale, frequency, and form of the brokerage business. Thus, even if a brokerage business is conducted on one occasion, it shall be deemed that the brokerage business has been conducted with an intention to continue the transaction between others, but it shall not be deemed that the brokerage business has been conducted as a business if it received remuneration.

Supreme Court Decision 2006Do342 Decided April 14, 2006 and Supreme Court Decision 2006Do342 Decided April 14, 2006