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. The Plaintiff, a company that engages in the business of mediating and consulting real estate, and the Defendant and Nonparty C, the spouse of the Defendant and the Defendant, requested the Plaintiff to color the goods in order to run the Moel business.

B. On November 30, 2018, the Defendant entered into a real estate lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff’s director E with respect to the Daejeon Sung-gu Felel (hereinafter “the instant cartel”) as the Plaintiff’s intermediary and paid KRW 400,000,000 (on November 30, 2018, the payment of KRW 350,000 when moving in, and the remaining KRW 50,000 when one year elapsed), monthly rent of KRW 26,00,000 (Additional Tax), and from November 30, 2018 to November 30, 2020, the Defendant paid KRW 350,000 on that day.

C. Meanwhile, the phrase “the description of brokerage remuneration, etc.” attached at the time of the instant lease agreement stated that “the brokerage remuneration shall be separately agreed on” and “the details of calculation” stated that “the brokerage remuneration shall be determined by mutual consultation between the client and the practicing licensed real estate agent within 9/1000 of the transaction amount and the value-added tax may be imposed separately.”

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant claiming the amount of KRW 27,00,000 as the brokerage commission for the instant lease agreement and damages for delay, and the first instance court rendered a judgment that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim only for KRW 15,00,000 and damages for delay by applying the rate of brokerage commission to 0.5% of the conversion deposit for the instant lease agreement.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, and Eul 3's each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Grounds for appeal and determination

A. The reason for appeal was that the former lessee of the instant Moel demanded the Defendant to pay the premium, and there was a dispute as to the amount thereof, etc., and the Plaintiff himself intended to have the instant lease contract executed.