1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. On July 2019, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant could purchase the Daegu Dong-gu C Apartment D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) upon the Defendant’s request for purchase brokerage, but thereafter, the Defendant concluded a sales contract for the instant real estate through another licensed real estate agent, excluding the Plaintiff.

Since the plaintiff was not involved in the final conclusion process of the above sales contract without any responsibility, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a fee of KRW 1,324,00 as an intermediary fee and damages for delay.

2. The act of real estate brokerage as to the object of brokerage is to arrange the transaction, exchange, lease and other acts concerning the acquisition, loss and transfer of rights between the parties to the transaction regarding the object of brokerage, and in principle, the broker may claim the brokerage commission to the broker only after the execution of the contract, such as the preparation of the contract, etc.

However, in the event that there are special circumstances such as the suspension of a brokerage act due to a cause not attributable to the broker and failure to participate in the preparation, etc. of the final contract even though the broker served as a critical factor in the formation of the contract, in light of the purport of Article 686(3) of the Civil Act and Article 61 of the Commercial Act and the principle of trust and good faith, the broker has the authority to claim a brokerage commission corresponding

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da12432, Apr. 27, 2007). Evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence No. 1, etc., alone, purchased the instant real estate through the Plaintiff’s brokerage.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff played a critical role in concluding a sales contract for the instant real estate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's assertion.

3. If so, the first instance judgment is legitimate.