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

가. 당사자들의 관계 원고는 부동산분양 및 분양대행업, 부동산개발업 등을 영위하는 회사이고, 피고는 주택신축판매업, 토목건축공사업 등을 영위하는 회사로서 용인시 기흥구 마북동 641 일대에 공동주택(이하 ‘이 사건 아파트’라 한다)을 신축한 시행사이다.

B. (1) On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the sales agency, etc.) with the Defendant, and 34 households unsold in lots among the instant apartment units from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant unsold housing units”).

(3) A purchase-type sales agency contract (hereinafter “sale-type sales agency contract of this case”) under which a third party purchaser would pay a balance with a loan borrowed as security after raising the purchase price to the third party purchaser, to purchase approximately KRW 16.37 billion at a discount of 39.5% from the existing purchase price, and to pay KRW 340 million as the down payment. The so-called purchase-type sales agency contract under which the third party purchaser would pay the balance with the loan borrowed as security (hereinafter “instant sales agency contract”).

(2) On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a contract. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 340 million to the account of Rose of Sharon Trust Co., Ltd., the Defendant trusted the instant apartment.

C. 1) The remainder payment period of the instant sales agency contract was set at two months after the date of the contract, but the Plaintiff, around December 26, 2013, entered into a sales agency contract of this case. The Plaintiff refers to the Defendant: (a) the previous sales agency company (referring to the IMN), and (b) IMN loan.

(2) Around December 18, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the extension of the contract period of one to two months on the grounds of business damage caused by the failure to take place between one month after the contract, ② the image of the resident’s suicide, ③ the restriction or delay on loans at the end of the year, ④ the increase in the supply of small-sized square-type apartments around the complex. The Defendant’s person in charge has accepted the Plaintiff’s request and extended the contract period for two months. (2) Around December 18, 2013, the Plaintiff among the unsold goods in this case, 106 Dong 1702, and 1704 of the instant apartment among the unsold goods in lots. < Amended by