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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Defendant is the owner of the Nam-gu Busan metropolitan apartment 7 Dong 501 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and the Plaintiff is a person who intends to purchase the instant apartment as a broker of E (hereinafter “instant broker”) operating the “D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.”

B. The instant broker, who posted the instant apartment on the bulletin board, sent the Plaintiff’s intent of purchase by having contacted the Defendant F with the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, and delivered the Plaintiff’s intention of purchase. On February 25, 2015, the instant broker and F agreed on a provisional agreement to set the sales price of the instant apartment as KRW 193 million at oral around February 25, 2015. The Plaintiff agreed on a provisional agreement to set the sales price of the instant apartment as KRW 5 million on February 25, 2015.

3.2.2. 10 million won, including KRW 15 million, was remitted to the Defendant’s account in the name of down payment (hereinafter “instant down payment”).

C. On March 2015, the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff the said KRW 15 million, which was paid by the Plaintiff to the first policeman.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant entered into a sales contract on February 25, 2015 regarding the instant apartment, and the Plaintiff transferred the down payment of KRW 15 million to the Defendant, but the Defendant unilaterally rescinded the said sales contract thereafter.

The defendant can cancel the sales contract only on the basis of the repayment of the down payment received pursuant to Article 565 of the Civil Act. Since the defendant returned only the down payment of KRW 15 million received from the plaintiff, he is liable to pay the remainder of the down payment of KRW 15 million and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s allegation that the instant down payment is limited to the provisional contract amount unilaterally transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant without agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the essential part of the instant apartment sales contract, and the instant apartment contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.