In order to receive the commission for the purchase of the house, the salesperson and the buyer have agreed to have their relatives register as the "introducer" for this transaction on the designated platform, which can be refunded. However, after the purchase contract was signed, the company refused to cash back due to illegal operations. Recently, the Intermediate People's Court of Zhoushan City, Zhejiang Province concluded this dispute case in the second instance and ultimately ruled that the developer should pay 20000 yuan to the buyer. In the second half of 2021, Ms. Zhang visited a real estate in Zhoushan City multiple times to see the property, and the salesperson Wan from the developer of the real estate was responsible for reception. Ms. Zhang took a liking to a 90 square meter house and negotiated the price with Mr. Wan. In order to facilitate Ms. Zhang's order, Wan promised that as long as a trustworthy "introducer" is registered on the designated platform and completes the information reporting, the "introducer" will receive a recommendation commission of 20000 yuan as a refund after Ms. Zhang's purchase and signing process is completed. Under the guidance of Wan, Ms. Li, a relative of Ms. Zhang, registered and authenticated on the above-mentioned platform under the name of the introducer. In February 2022, Ms. Zhang signed a pre-sale contract for commercial housing with the developer, purchasing this 90 square meter house for 1.278 million yuan and fulfilling payment obligations as agreed. Afterwards, Ms. Zhang asked Wan multiple times when she could return the cash, but Wan stated that after the company's review, the 20000 yuan was considered a violation and could not be returned. Ms. Zhang believes that her transaction with the developer has been completed and the developer should return the cash according to the agreement. In September 2022, Ms. Zhang and Ms. Li, the introducer, filed a lawsuit to the court demanding that the developer pay 20000 yuan. The developer argues that Ms. Li, the introducer, has not provided any intermediary services to the company and is not a housing recommender, which does not meet the platform's requirements for cash back. Wan's behavior is a violation of his personal work goals and should not be borne by the company. Therefore, the developer does not need to pay intermediary service fees to him. After hearing the case, the court of first instance held that in the process of selling the house by the developer, Mr. Wan, the salesperson, was responsible for negotiating with Ms. Zhang. The negotiated purchase price plan included the agreement that after Ms. Zhang completed the signing process, the developer would return the purchase price of 20000 yuan to the introducer. This agreement was the true declaration of will of Mr. Wan, Ms. Zhang, and Ms. Li, the introducer, and had legal effect. As an employee of the developer responsible for the sale of the property involved in the case, Wan's agreement is considered a professional act, and the legal consequences should be borne by the developer. The current developer refused to fulfill the agreement on the grounds that Ms. Li, the introducer, was not a house recommender and did not meet the platform's requirements, which clearly violated integrity. Therefore, the developer was ordered to pay Ms. Zhang and Ms. Li, the introducer, 20000 yuan. The developer is dissatisfied with the first instance decision and has filed an appeal. Recently, the Zhoushan Intermediate People's Court made a final judgment to uphold the first instance judgment. The judge's statement states that Article 170 of the Civil Code stipulates that a civil legal act carried out by a person carrying out the work tasks of a legal person or an unincorporated organization in the name of the legal person or an unincorporated organization shall have effect on the legal person or an unincorporated organization in respect of matters within their scope of authority. The restrictions on the scope of authority of personnel performing their work tasks imposed by legal persons or organizations without legal personality shall not oppose bona fide counterparts. As an ordinary consumer, there is reason to believe that sales personnel have