1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a licensed real estate agent operating real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is the owner of the building located in Gwangju City D (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On May 8, 2013, the Plaintiff arranged the instant lease agreement concluded between the Defendant and E, setting the rental deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. The letter of confirmation of the object of brokerage attached after the lease agreement was made at the time of the instant lease agreement

In the case of matters concerning brokerage commission, etc., the amount of brokerage commission is KRW 3,150,00,000. The following is that the name of the defendant is stated in the seller's name, and the seal of the defendant is affixed next to that.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant was obligated to pay 3.15 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances, since the defendant concluded a lease agreement on the building of this case with E as a broker by the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s defense delegated the F with all the powers regarding the authorization and permission for the new construction of the instant building, the execution of construction, and the conclusion of a lease agreement.

F requested the Plaintiff to mediate a lease agreement on the instant building, and at the time, the Defendant, the lessor, agreed not to receive a brokerage commission under the instant lease agreement.

Therefore, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 5 as well as the overall purport of the judgment, ① the Plaintiff, while mediating the instant lease agreement on May 8, 2013, simultaneously at the same time between G and E, is classified into “a lease agreement with regard to two retail stores of buildings located in the said H.”