A. The Plaintiff, from the Defendant, intended to purchase the instant building with the area of 265.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the 4th floor above that ground (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant as a broker affiliated with the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office (hereinafter “D”). The Defendant, as the owner of each of the instant real estate, requested the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office (hereinafter “E”), to intermediate the sale of each of the instant real estate to the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office (hereinafter “E”).

B. On October 18, 2016, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 9-1 and Eul evidence 9-2, testimony of party witness F and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant as a provisional contract for the conclusion of the sales contract for each of the instant real estate. Since the sales contract was not concluded later, the Plaintiff sought the return of the said money by unjust enrichment.

B. A sales contract for each of the instant real estate was established on October 18, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s assertion, and the Defendant’s payment of KRW 20 million received from the Plaintiff on October 18, 2016 is part of the down payment received on the premise that the sales contract was concluded.

However, the plaintiff unilaterally reversed the above sales contract, and the defendant confiscated the above money.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) For the formation of a contract, there is a need for agreement between the parties on all matters which form the content of the contract in question, and the agreement on its essential or important matters, but there is a specific agreement or at least on standards and methods which may specify the future in detail.