A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles (Defendant) sold to G on March 7, 2013, the status of being selected as an occupant of “Seoul E Apartment No. 521 1503, May 7, 2013 (hereinafter “instant right of sale”) and did not sell it on February 8, 2013.

G deposited KRW 3 million to the Defendant on February 8, 2013, which is the fact that G might sell the instant sales right to another person, that G would deposit part of the amount to the broker of “I real estate”.

On February 8, 2013, the Defendant and G did not reach an agreement on the important matters of the sales contract, such as the purchase price and the timing and method of payment, and thus, the sales contract for the instant right was established.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The lower court’s punishment (two million won in penalty) is too heavy or unhued so as to be unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport, and the lower court did not accept the Defendant’s allegation on the following grounds, recognizing the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

1) For the purpose of the formation of a contract, the agreement between the parties is required to be reached, and such agreement is not required with respect to all matters forming the content of the contract in question, but there is a specific agreement with regard to its essential matters or important matters, or at least an agreement with respect to standards and methods that can specify them in the future. On the other hand, in a case where the parties fail to reach an agreement with respect to matters that the agreement should be reached, it is reasonable to deem that the contract has not been concluded unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51650, Mar. 23, 200).