1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff introduced the lessee D to the Defendant upon receiving a request from the Defendant for brokerage of the lease of the fourth floor (hereinafter “instant building”) among the five-story buildings on the ground of 282.8 square meters in Gwangju Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant building”).

At the time D had visited the building of this case according to the plaintiff's guidance, and expressed an opinion satisfactory to lease it.

However, the defendant excluded the plaintiff for the purpose of not paying brokerage fees to the plaintiff, and prepared a lease contract on the building of this case at D and other brokerage establishments.

Thus, the defendant and D's lease contract was concluded as a broker of the plaintiff, but it is merely an unfair lease contract executed by the defendant only as a broker of another licensed real estate agent in order to escape from the obligation to pay brokerage fees to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant should pay 900,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The real estate brokerage contract is a contract under which the real estate broker receives remuneration equivalent to the brokerage commission on the condition that the real estate broker completes the conclusion of the contract on the object of brokerage such as the preparation of the contract.

Therefore, a person who asserts that he/she has a right to claim a brokerage commission must prove not only the conclusion of a real estate brokerage contract, but also the fact that a real estate sales contract is constituted as

Even if the broker has made a mediation efforts, he/she shall not claim a mediation commission equivalent to the ratio of such efforts unless the contract has been concluded as the mediation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 4289Sang81 delivered on April 12, 1956). B.

In light of the above legal principles, according to the health team, witness D's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff was merely a visit to D with the building of this case, and it was merely a substantial act of brokerage, such as negotiating D's lease contract with the Defendant.