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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. A. Around February 12, 2014, the Defendant visited the Plaintiff’s “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” operated by the Plaintiff and asked the Plaintiff of whether there is an adequate commercial building, stating the plan to rent the store in which the Plaintiff would operate the clothing store. The Plaintiff introduced to the Defendant various commercial buildings including the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 104 Building (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff received a written confirmation from the lessee Oral Plastic Co., Ltd. of the instant store that the lessee would not claim for the premium on the condition that the new lessee bears the cost of removal of facilities. On February 24, 2014, at the Defendant’s request on February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff provided 3,300,000 won, E and B, the owner of the instant store.

C. However, around February 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that it would not enter into a lease contract on the date of the contract desired by the owner of the instant store, and that it would not enter into the lease contract on the date of the contract. On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiff notified E that the lease contract with the Plaintiff was difficult.

After March 24, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with regard to the instant store as a broker of G which operates a “F Licensed Real Estate Agent” other than the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) from March 26, 2014 to March 25, 2016, with respect to the instant store as the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, monthly renting KRW 3.3 million, and lease terming to March 26, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion entered into an oral brokerage contract with the defendant on the conclusion of the instant store lease contract, and the plaintiff acts as a broker by shocking that it is the difference with the instant store. However, the defendant did not pay a brokerage fee to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is the Licensed Real Estate Agent Act to the plaintiff.