2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

A. The Defendant shared 1/2 shares of the first floor E (hereinafter “instant building”) of the building D in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, with her husband, and leased the instant building to F, a pharmacist, by April 14, 2017.

B. On November 2016, the Defendant entrusted the Plaintiff with all of the affairs pertaining to the lease of the instant building, entrusting the Plaintiff with the brokerage of lending the instant building to another pharmacist.

(hereinafter “instant brokerage commission”). C.

The terms and conditions of the building lease of this case requested by the Defendant while entrusting brokerage of this case were KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 20 million, premium of KRW 50 million, and premium of this case.

Accordingly, even though the plaintiff was a pharmacist in accordance with the conditions required by the defendant, there were two or three pharmacists who have accepted the terms of KRW 20 million for lease deposit, KRW 15 million for monthly rent, and KRW 600 million for premium.

Although the Plaintiff intended to introduce the above pharmacists to the Defendant, the Defendant did not enter into a lease agreement because it wanted to receive the premium of KRW 50 million additionally.

E. As the Plaintiff was unable to color a person who meets the conditions presented by the Defendant, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant brokerage commission around March 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, entry of Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s cause of the claim is an individual entrepreneur who provides management consulting services.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay 10% of the premium to the Plaintiff as a consulting fee for the instant brokerage commission.

The plaintiff introduced, on several occasions, the subjects of consultation with the defendant in good faith and close to the conditions presented by the defendant. However, the defendant presented excessive premium and intentionally interfered with the conclusion of the lease contract.