1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On November 20, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) as the Plaintiff arranged a sales contract concluded between Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and the Defendant with respect to the amount of 513 square meters and 198 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Busan Dong-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); (b) then, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Defendant for a brokerage commission of KRW 28,530,000 equivalent to 0.9 percent of the sales price, the amount of KRW 3,170,000,000.

2. Determination

A. Whether a certain act constitutes a brokerage act or not shall not be determined on the basis of the broker’s subjective intent that the broker has an intention to mediate or mediate a transaction on behalf of the party to the transaction, not on the basis of whether the broker’s act is objectively viewed as an act for mediating or mediating a transaction in light of social norms.

(2) In light of the purport of Article 686(3) of the Civil Act, Article 61 of the Commercial Act, and the principle of good faith, etc., a broker has the authority to claim a brokerage commission corresponding to the extent of an act of brokerage performed against the client, in principle, only when the contract is concluded by the broker, such as the preparation of the contract for the object of brokerage. However, if there are special circumstances, such as the broker’s act of brokerage was interrupted due to a cause not attributable to him/her and was not involved in the preparation, etc. of the final contract, the broker has the authority to claim a brokerage commission corresponding to the extent of the act of brokerage performed against the client, in light of the purport of Article 686(3) of the Commercial Act, the Commercial Act, the principle of good faith, etc.

Busan District Court Decision 2005Na10743 Decided January 25, 2007