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

Accordingly, the Plaintiff introduced the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant.

However, on July 26, 2013, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with C on the instant building as a broker of our real estate consulting company, which is another broker (hereinafter “non-party company”).

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff introduced the instant building that is suitable for the relocation of the Defendant Company upon the Defendant’s request for the brokerage of lease from the Defendant, and then directly sent the on-site inspection and the copy of the registry, the copy of the building, etc. concerning the instant building, and C fulfilled the broker’s duty by satisfying the terms and conditions of the lease, arranging to conclude a lease agreement, etc.

Accordingly, even though the conclusion of the lease agreement on the building of this case between the defendant and C was almost high, the defendant concluded a lease agreement with C through another broker without excluding the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay a brokerage commission for the act of brokerage already done by the plaintiff.

B. According to Article 32 of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act, a broker may collect commission from a client with respect to brokerage business. According to Article 2 of the same Act, a broker mediates the sale, exchange, lease, and other gain, loss, and transfer of rights with respect to the object of brokerage between the parties to the transaction, and the broker stipulates that the broker has registered the establishment of the office that runs the brokerage business.

In light of these regulations, real estate brokers are involved.