Core Viewpoint - The court ruled in favor of the agency, stating that the clients must pay a commission fee for the services provided, despite their argument that no agreement was reached on the terms of the contract [1][2] Group 1: Court Ruling - The court determined that the clients, Ms. Jiang and Mr. Gu, signed a contract based on the intermediary services provided by the agency, thus the agency has the right to claim the corresponding commission fee [1][2] - The final judgment required both clients to pay 25,000 yuan each to the agency [1][2] Group 2: Agency's Claims - The agency claimed that it provided continuous consultation and communication regarding the property, and facilitated meetings between the clients [1] - The agency argued that the clients had refused to pay the commission fee after the property was sold through another company [1] Group 3: Clients' Defense - The clients contended that no agreement was reached on the main terms of the intermediary service contract, and thus no contractual obligations existed [1][2] - Mr. Gu asserted that he never authorized the agency to sell the property and that the agency only contacted him after seeing the property listed on other platforms [2]