1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 10,534.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent who was engaged in real estate brokerage business under the trade name "C real estate brokerage office" in Pyeongtaek-si B, and the Defendant Company is a corporation established for the purpose of housing rental business, etc.

B. On February 27, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) arranged a contract to sell KRW 1,400 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si D Miscellaneous land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) received KRW 42,350,000 from the Defendant for brokerage commission on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap No. 2, Eul No. 1 and 2 (including the number of branches), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff, through F, arranged Pyeongtaek-si G (hereinafter “H site”) to the Defendant through H, and the said F had the Defendant work as an internal director of the Defendant Company, and the Defendant and H did not receive approximately KRW 67,065,650 ( = 75,600,000 - 8,534,350 - 8,5350) excluding KRW 75,60,000, which was paid previously, out of the amount of brokerage fees of KRW 75,60,00 by concluding a direct contract with the Defendant without excluding the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the said amount should be paid to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff's statement in subparagraph 1 alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff had mediated the sale and purchase between H as to the above H site and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's main claim is without merit.

B. We examine the judgment on the defendant's counterclaim. The Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions (Law No. 10663, August 20, 201), which was in force at the time of the plaintiff's brokerage, provides that the fees which the broker is entitled to receive within 9/1,00 of the transaction amount, and the mediation commission agreement in excess of the limit is null and void as a violation of compulsory law.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Da32159 Decided December 20, 2007, etc.).