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

Since the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, and the Plaintiff’s brokerage assistant C, the Defendant leased some of the buildings located in Gangnam-si D (hereinafter “instant leased object”), the Defendant is obligated to pay a brokerage commission to the Plaintiff.

2. In order for a contract to be concluded, the objective agreement between the parties is required to be reached, and in order to have an objective agreement, all the matters expressed in the parties’ declaration of intent should be the same. On the other hand, even if the contents of the contract are not “important” and objective elements of the contract, in particular, when the parties expressed their intent with significant significance and expressed their intent to be the requirements for the formation of the contract, the contract shall be duly and effectively concluded only when the agreement is reached.

In addition, an offer, which is a legal requirement for the formation of a contract, must be specific and conclusive that the contract is concluded immediately if the offer accepts the offer. Therefore, it is necessary to include matters to the extent that the contents of the contract can be determined.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to lease the object of lease of this case to the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da53059, Apr. 11, 2003). It did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to lease the object of lease of this case to the Plaintiff. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the right to lease of this case.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant did not request the Plaintiff to mediate for the lease of the leased object of this case, and the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff did not receive a brokerage request with respect to the lease of the building of this case from the Defendant, and concluded a brokerage contract with the Plaintiff, which is acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings on the entries and images of the evidence Nos. 4 and No. 1 (including the virtual numbers).