1. The defendant's Suwon District Court's Sungnam Branch 2019 Ghana 19149 brokerage commission case against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a licensed real estate agent who operates the “C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Seongbuk-si, Sungnam-si.

B. On July 21, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting the deposit amount of KRW 320,000,000,000, and the period from October 5, 2018 to October 5, 2020, between the Defendant’s brokerage and Seongbuk-gu E building F owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. On May 20, 2019, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Suwon District Court Branch Branch Branch 2019 Ghana19149 (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul District Court”). In the said lawsuit, a decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 6, 2019 to the date of complete payment, which is the day following the date of service of the decision of performance recommendation for KRW 1,280,000 and the day of service of the decision of performance recommendation for the Plaintiff.”

The confirmation description of the object of brokerage signed and sealed by the plaintiff, the defendant, and the lessee at the time of the lease contract of this case shall state that the brokerage fee is calculated as 1.28,00 won by the rate (0.4% of the value of the object of brokerage) prescribed by City/Do municipal ordinance.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 7, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The legal relationship between a real estate broker and a client is identical to a delegation relationship under the Civil Act. According to Article 61 of the Commercial Act and Article 32(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act, a licensed real estate agent may claim a prescribed remuneration from a client.

As seen earlier, the Defendant, as a licensed real estate agent, acted as a broker for the Plaintiff’s interest, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay brokerage fees to the Defendant.

B. However, in light of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to the brokerage commission for the whole tax contract of this case.