1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 8, 2013, the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, engaging in real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “C real estate,” concluded two lease agreements (hereinafter “instant lease agreements”) between the Defendant and D, respectively, with respect to two retail stores of E mobile and non-dong neighborhood living facilities located in Gwangju city owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”) as KRW 75,000,000, monthly rent, and KRW 3,500,000.

B. Meanwhile, the description of confirmation of the object of brokerage attached after the instant lease agreement states "3,825,00 won (= [3,500,000 won (3,500,000 won) x 0.9%] in the amount of brokerage commission. The said amount is the amount calculated by the method prescribed in Article 20 (5) of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 115, Jul. 29, 2014) in accordance with the highest fee rate prescribed in Article 20 (4) of the same Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant concluded two lease agreements on the commercial building of this case with D as the plaintiff's broker, and barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a commission for brokerage commission (=3,825,000 won x 2) and damages for delay.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff agreed not to receive brokerage fees under each of the instant lease agreements between F and F that was delegated by the Defendant with all the authority regarding the authorization and permission, execution of construction works, and conclusion of lease contracts, etc., for the instant new commercial building construction, and that the Defendant, a lessor, did not receive brokerage fees under each of the instant lease agreements. As such, the Defendant’s argument is based on the following: (a) the aforementioned evidence, as well as the evidence Nos. 1, 5-2, 2-2, 3-1, 3-3, and the testimony of the witness F