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

The reasons for the judgment in this part are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that as stated in the real estate sales contract (Evidence A No. 5) prepared with Cho○ on December 29, 2004, the amount equivalent to 125,200,000 won [=a down payment of KRW 75,200,000 + (i.e., 376,000,000 x 20%) + 50,000 won for premiums] was received.

On the other hand, the defendant and ○○○ asserted that the above contract was merely a multi-unit contract and there was a separate real transaction contract, and that ○○ paid the plaintiff the total sum of KRW 120 million on December 30, 2004 and KRW 120 million on January 13, 2005 to the plaintiff as premium, and that he paid the plaintiff the down payment and the seven intermediate payments that the plaintiff paid to the plaintiff as total sum of KRW 75,200,000 and KRW 75,200,000 on the test cost.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the testimony by the witness of the first instance trial, the testimony by the witness of the first instance trial, the testimony by the witness of the party instance trial, and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 120 million with the premium, in addition to the Plaintiff’s receipt of the down payment, the total sum of KRW 75,200,000 and the expenses for artificial test, etc., paid by the Plaintiff from ○○○○, and the expenses for the down payment and the seven part payments paid by the Plaintiff, etc., and the amount of KRW 30,000,000 on December 30, 2004, and KRW 120,000,000 won on January 13, 2005, and as such,

① In the process of submitting explanatory materials related to gains on transfer of the above apartment, ○○ testified that the premium was KRW 120,000,000,000 in the first instance court after submitting a written confirmation of transaction to the effect that the premium was KRW 120,000,000,000, and the first instance court testified that the above sales contract was a multiple contract, and that the premium was actually a contract exceeding KRW 12,000,000,000,00

The plaintiff asserts that it is difficult to understand that he paid in cash the amount of 70 million won or more, other than 120 million won, the payment details of which are confirmed, but because he had been engaged in his personal business at the time of his "Gangsan", there was a lot of cash and there was a money disposing of real estate, and there was a 10,000 won check together with 10,000 won and 100,000 won check. Therefore, it is not difficult to pay the above amount.

② According to the KB real estate market tax data, the Plaintiff’s assertion that, at the time, the said apartment unit premium was formed from KRW 14 million to KRW 154 million, and that, due to various financial circumstances, the said apartment unit premium was trusted only at the end of a real estate broker and sold approximately KRW 70 million, or KRW 50 million below, is difficult to accept.

③ On the other hand, the above sales contract is difficult to believe in light of the following points. According to the above sales contract, the sales contract is to pay the down payment of KRW 125,200,000,000 for the purchase price, and the remainder of KRW 105,200,000 for the purchase price, January 25, 2005, respectively, but it is difficult to deem that the above sales contract is true since the payment of KRW 12,00,000,000 for the transfer to the account on December 30, 204 and the transfer of KRW 90,000,000 for the check on January 13, 2005 and the payment of KRW 12,00,000 for the remainder is different from the date of payment and the payment of the remainder until before the date of change of name is made.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that he received KRW 90 million in advance due to the reason that he has to newly construct a factory and pay the construction cost to the contractor, but it is difficult to understand that there was a circumstance that he has to pay KRW 90 million in advance, which was not anticipated at the time of entering into a sales contract, and that there was a circumstance that he has to pay KRW 90 million in advance, which was not expected at the time of entering into a sales contract on 20,000.

Although the above sales contract was prepared as a "sub-party agreement without a licensed real estate agent", it is difficult to find any other reason why the contract should be prepared without excluding the licensed real estate agent in the real estate transaction arranged by the licensed real estate agent.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.