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

A. On August 31, 2018, in order to sell D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendants, the Defendants requested sale brokerage with the purchase price of KRW 730 million in F real estate in order to sell D apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and F real estate was known to another real estate brokerage office.

B. On September 3, 2018, the Plaintiff visited the instant apartment through the brokerage of the G Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, and on the same day, indicated that the said apartment will be purchased on the Defendant side through the licensed real estate agent.

On September 3, 2018, the Plaintiff’s side (H, the head of the Plaintiff) deposited KRW 20 million in the account of Defendant C’s Bank (Account Number I).

Since then, the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff (the plaintiff's head of the plaintiff) confirmed the deposit of the above 20 million won when making a telephone conversation with the defendant C.

C. On September 8, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendants prepared a sales contract and paid KRW 53 million, excluding the above KRW 20 million, on the day the down payment is KRW 73 million on the day.

However, on September 8, 2018, the Defendants delivered to the Plaintiff via F Real Estate on September 8, 2018 that the Plaintiff had no intention to proceed with the contract. On November 29, 2018, the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2001Da5001, supra, designated the Plaintiff as the principal deposit and deposited the said KRW 20 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 13, 14, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendants confirmed their trade intent through their respective licensed real estate agents, confirmed the sales price and the down payment, and concluded a sales contract on December 30, 2018 in accordance with the tenant’s evictions.

However, the Defendants unilaterally rescinded the above sales contract.

The defendants' act constitutes a rejection of performance, and the plaintiff is served with a duplicate of the complaint of this case.