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

A. The Defendant entered into a contract for sales agency services for B apartment units in Seocho-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is constructed in the construction of a new branch with the construction company of a new branch (hereinafter “the construction company of a new branch”) and the Plaintiff is the father and wife of D, the representative of the C Licensed Real Estate Agent Office in the vicinity B apartment units.

B. Around August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a provisional contract with the Plaintiff to purchase ten bonds (hereinafter “instant apartment 10 bonds”) including 243,000,000 won per bond, among the households for which the sales contract was cancelled, 201, 2402, 203, 1901, 2202, 2302, 2302, 2401, 2402, 2601, 2701, 2702, and 2702, and paid 10,000,000 won per bond to the Defendant.

C. On October 15, 2015, the Defendant returned the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, which caused the instant claim, concluded a provisional contract on the instant apartment 10 bonds, and entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to confiscate the provisional contract amount in the event that the Plaintiff did not perform its duties, and to redeem a double of the provisional contract amount in the event that the Defendant did not perform its duties (hereinafter “agreement on penalty for breach of contract”). The Defendant is liable to pay as penalty the double of the provisional contract amount paid by the Plaintiff, as it disposed of the said apartment to a third party before the payment date for the remainder reaches

B. The Defendant, as to whether a provisional contract is concluded, asserts that the Plaintiff (or the Plaintiff’s mother D) only mediated the sale of the instant apartment and that the provisional contract was not concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Thus, first, the Plaintiff and the Defendant should consider whether the provisional contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the sale of the instant apartment bonds, and there is no reason to pay money in the name of the deposit if the provisional contract was simply made for brokerage, and when the Plaintiff pays money to the Defendant.