The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is to purport of the claim.

1. On May 12, 2019, the Defendant asserted that, as a broker of the Plaintiff, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Sejong City C Apartment D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the deposit amount of KRW 200 million and the contract term of three years.

(The Defendant paid the lessor a down payment of KRW 1 million, which is part of the down payment of KRW 20 million. The Defendant concluded a lease contract for the instant apartment by the Plaintiff’s brokerage, and thus, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a commission for brokerage.

2. The real estate brokerage contract provides that a real estate broker shall receive remuneration equivalent to a brokerage commission on the condition that the contract is completed by an act of brokerage such as the preparation of a contract for the object of brokerage. As such, a person claiming that there is a real estate brokerage commission shall prove not only the conclusion of a real estate brokerage contract, but also the fact that the real estate sales contract was formed by his/her act of brokerage. Even if the broker has made an endeavor for brokerage, he/she shall not claim a brokerage commission equivalent to the ratio of his/her endeavor unless

Article 32(3) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act and Article 27-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act set the timing for payment of brokerage remuneration as “the date the payment of brokerage remuneration is completed” in the same purport, and the Constitutional Court determined that the above provisions of the statutes do not violate

(See Constitutional Court Order 2015Hun-Ma248, May 26, 2016). The fact that the Plaintiff acted as an intermediary for the Defendant in relation to the lease agreement on apartment in this case is no dispute between the parties concerned.

However, considering the overall purport of the argument in Gap evidence 1, the plaintiff seems to have withdrawn the intention of entering into a contract prior to the preparation of the contract according to the plaintiff's intermediary act, and the amount of deposit for lease as well as the approximate.