1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for judgment of this court shall be the same as the judgment of the first instance; and

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, “The circumstances of the first instance court’s first instance court’s 6th decision” need to be added to “(the fact that the contents of the lease contract arranged by the Plaintiff are deemed to be partly incomplete in light of the fact that the lease contract was made again between the lessor and the Defendant, as it is necessary to determine in detail the defect of the leased object which was not verified at the time of the previous lease contract and the time and amount of payment considering the defect in the leased object and its consideration.”

In addition, following the fourth 15th sentence of the first instance court shall be added:

(3) The defendant's assertion asserts that the defendant cannot pay brokerage fees because the brokerage contract that the plaintiff arranged was not destroyed and used.

However, according to Gap 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13, the defendant submitted and used the lease contract arranged by the plaintiff to the competent tax office, and paid 150,000,000 won on the day of preparation in accordance with the contents of the lease contract. In order to implement the contents, the plaintiff received a written confirmation of surrender from the existing occupant C, and can be recognized that the plaintiff made the key of the leased object to the defendant.

In addition to these facts, the plaintiff should be deemed to have mediated the lease contract between the lessor company and the defendant, and thus, the defendant's assertion against this is rejected.

In addition, the defendant asserts that this point should also be taken into account in determining the brokerage commission, since there was a defect in the object of lease arranged by the plaintiff which was not confirmed by the plaintiff.

The defects of the leased object, which was not confirmed at the time of the lease agreement dated October 30, 2012, are confirmed after the defects of the leased object, as seen earlier, but the defects of the leased object acknowledged by Gap 31.