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.

Plaintiff’s assertion

around 2006, the Plaintiff leased the instant commercial building from D, the owner of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Commercial Building 1 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

D On December 26, 2012, E completed the registration of ownership transfer on the commercial building of this case.

At the time of the termination of the lease agreement, the Defendant, who actually operated the F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, applied the F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office's own G and found it and introduced it to E, a new owner, and claimed that G could not pay the premium to be occupied in the commercial building of this case with the consent of E.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff renounced all of the premium equivalent to KRW 70 million that it could have originally received, and immediately around June 2013, the Plaintiff was forced to leave the commercial building of this case after being paid KRW 25 million as a compensation for business losses, etc.

However, later, even though G was requested by the Defendant to mediate a commercial building and did not have any connection with E, the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff and forced him to leave the commercial building of this case. During that process, the fact that the Defendant received KRW 5 million from G and paid to the Plaintiff only KRW 25 million among them.

Although G’s KRW 50 million paid to the Defendant should be delivered to the Plaintiff as the premium for the instant commercial building, the Defendant arbitrarily acquired the amount of KRW 30 million (=50 million-25 million) from among these points, and return the said money to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

Judgment

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was working with G and found himself, there is no evidence of this, and instead, in light of the overall purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5-2, it can be acknowledged that the employees of the F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office mediated the lease transaction of the commercial building of this case at G’s request, while the Defendant is registered as the broker assistant of the above office on June 2013, the fact that he was unable to work at the office because the health is not good.

The defendant's assertion is H. H.