중개수수료
1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:
The defendant.
1. There is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and witness C of the trial party, the defendant entered into a lease contract with C by setting the lease term of approximately KRW 441.62 square meters on the first floor of the building located in Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City from March 1, 2014 to February 29, 2016, the lease deposit of KRW 30,000, monthly rent of KRW 280,000, and KRW 2,000,000 for each of the above lease. Accordingly, while the defendant leased and used for profit from the above lease object, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have concluded the lease contract between the parties to the lease contract and the new 10,000,0000,0000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the lease object of this case"), the lease contract of this case shall be deemed to have been concluded between the parties to 10,50,514.
2. The Plaintiff asserted that there was an oral agreement that the Defendant would receive a brokerage commission under the instant lease agreement. In the event that an ordinary lease agreement is terminated before the expiration of the term, there was a practice that the existing lessee would bear the brokerage commission under the new lease agreement. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks payment against the Defendant for brokerage commission under the instant lease agreement.
3. Determination Doctrine, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act is about the object of brokerage as provided in Article 3.