1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On August 2015, the Plaintiff, who operates a real estate brokerage office, was requested to purchase a restaurant with the Defendant’s high flagpole house, and analyzed the local conditions and market conditions of the restaurant in the area designated by the Defendant, but there was no adequate commercial building in the area desired by the Defendant.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, upon consultation with the Defendant, confirmed the entire area of Ulsan-gu and Nam-gu, and transmitted comparative analysis data on the results of commercial building analysis for 4 areas, including 2 Samsan-dong and 2 Shin Dong-dong.

C. In the above comparative analysis data, the rights analysis, expected investment return, and advantages and disadvantages from the purchase were described in detail.

The above comparative analysis data included the analysis data on the building Ulsan-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). D.

Although the defendant showed a negative position at the time when the plaintiff recommends the commercial building of this case, he sought an explanation such as the value of the plaintiff's building and the investment rate, and decided whether to purchase it with her husband.

E. However, on August 28, 2015, the Defendant excluded the Plaintiff as to the instant commercial building, and directly traded with the seller, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 21, 2015.

F. In light of the above circumstances, a delegation contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant purchased the instant commercial building according to the Plaintiff’s active analysis result, and since the delegated affairs of this case are terminated due to the cause not attributable to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 33,000,000 (the value of the instant commercial building purchased by the Defendant 3,700,000,000 x Real Estate Brokerage Fee Rate 0.9%) with remuneration under the delegation contract.

2. Determination

A. In fact, the Defendant sought to purchase the flagpole in the rooftop area to the Plaintiff, and requested the confirmation of the building.

However, the plaintiff judged that there is no appropriate commercial building as a result of the investigation of the apartment zone, and thereafter the defendant is driving.