계약금반환 등
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 grounds for this part of the parties’ assertion are the same as the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
A. We examine whether a direct sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the instant real estate as to the determination of the parties to the instant sales contract.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective statements and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 17 (including serial numbers), the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the direct sales contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the direct sales contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Rather, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with G to sell the instant real estate to G Co., Ltd., and G Co., Ltd, without registering in its name, intended to sell the instant real estate purchased from the Defendant to the Plaintiff without registering in its name.
① The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any contact directly and continued to sell and purchase the instant real estate through their respective agents.
② On April 1, 2016, H Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s agent, deposited the instant real estate purchase price (a contract amount of KRW 74,450,00, an intermediate payment of KRW 10,000,000, an intermediate payment of KRW 53,024310, and remitted money) into G Co., Ltd., and G Co., Ltd remitted only KRW 82,50,000 among them to the Defendant.
If G corporation was an agent or intermediary of the defendant's sales contract, as alleged by the plaintiff, it should have received the full amount as an agent and received it as an intermediary and immediately transferred it to the defendant. However, it is difficult to regard G corporation as a mere agent or intermediary because it was delivered money in the above form.
③ Contracts consistent with the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s assertion are as follows.