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. Basic facts

A. On March 27, 2013, the Defendant: (a) between D and D who represented C on March 27, 2013, the three stories of Busan East-gu Etel owned by the Defendant are KRW 5 million; (b) the rent of KRW 7 million per month; and (c) the period from April 8, 2013 to the same year.

9. Until July, 90, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with a three-month period (hereinafter “instant contract”) and as a licensed real estate agent, the Plaintiff mediated the instant contract with the Defendant and C upon delegation by both parties.

B. The latter part of Article 8 (Mediation Fee) of the instant contract provides that "a brokerage commission shall be paid by both parties to the instant contract at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, and a brokerage commission shall be paid even if the instant contract has been invalidated, revoked, or terminated without the broker's intention or negligence." Meanwhile, according to the "a description of confirmation and description of the object of brokerage" prepared by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C jointly signature on March 27, 2013, the brokerage commission related to the instant contract is "6,345,00 won (Calculation: 7.5 million won (5 million won (monthly deposit x 100 million won) x 0.9%) x 0.9%)."

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 2 through 5, each entry of Evidence Nos. 2 through 5, part of witness F of the trial witness, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 6,340,000 won and damages for delay from among the contract brokerage fees to the plaintiff who arranged the contract of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since he/she shall pay C only when the contract of this case and the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage were prepared. However, it is difficult to believe that the statement of No. 3 as shown in the above argument is consistent with the defendant's above argument, and other evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the testimony of F witness F of the party trial, this case, including D, at the time of the contract of this case.