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

A. A. Around February 2016, the Defendant requested C to sell real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) received text messages from FF that run E Licensed Real Estate Agents (hereinafter “E Licensed Real Estate Agent”); (b) received, and subsequently selected the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, which presented three text messages, including the instant real estate sales proceeds; and (c) transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account that the said Licensed Real Estate Agent notified the Plaintiff as text messages on the same day.

C. On March 23, 2016, the Plaintiff sent text messages to E Licensed Real Estate Agents on April 4, 2016, taking into account loans. On March 23, 2016, E Licensed Real Estate Agents sent text messages to the Plaintiff on March 26, 2016 that E Licensed Real Estate Agents promised to make a contract at 4 p.m.... On March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff received text messages to the effect that “the seller was urged to make a deposit.” On March 24, 2016, the Plaintiff sent KRW 20 million to the Defendant.

D. On March 23, 2016, the Defendant received text messages from C to the effect that the time for the preparation of the instant real estate sales contract was four hours a Saturday on March 26, 2016. On March 25, 2016, the time for the preparation of the instant real estate sales contract can be at the night on March 29, 2016, and the balance may be at the night on April 8, 2016, and the date for the preparation of the contract was delayed, and the Defendant received text messages to request the Defendant to answer how to answer the remainder.

E. On March 30, 2016, the Defendant sent a certificate of content to the effect that the instant real estate sales contract was not concluded, and that the Plaintiff would return KRW 30 million received from the Plaintiff, on the grounds that the Plaintiff and E Licensed Real Estate Agent Representative F as an addressee, and that “the withdrawal of provisional contract and notification of scheduled judicial measures” was not concluded.

F. On March 31, 2016, the Defendant deposited KRW 30 million, which the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff as the principal deposit, with Suwon District Court No. 772 in 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 through 9 (Evidence with a provisional number shall include branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6; and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, through the Defendant and a licensed real estate agent, determined the subject matter of sale as KRW 710 million, and deposited KRW 10 million on March 22, 2016, and KRW 24 million on March 23, 2016 into the Defendant’s account as the down payment. On March 23, 2016, the remaining payment date agreed to be April 4, 2016. The subject matter of sale, the sale price, the date of preparation of a contract, and the remaining payment date, and the down payment to the Defendant’s account notified by a licensed real estate agent with the Defendant’s consent, should be deemed as the establishment of a sales contract for the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder KRW 680 million from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, to perform the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the instant real estate as a result of sale and purchase on March 22, 2016.

B. Relevant legal principles

In order to establish a contract, the agreement between the parties is required to be reached, and such agreement is not required with respect to all matters that form the content of the contract in question, and there is a need for an agreement on the standards and methods that may specifically and specifically specify the essential or important matters in the future (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51650, Mar. 23, 2001).

C. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the basic facts under Paragraph (1) of the holding, the entry of No. 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that a sales contract for the instant real estate was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion has no merit

1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not directly exchange their intentions, and the Plaintiff, via E Licensed Real Estate Agents C, continued to sell and purchase the instant real estate by delivering the intention of the Plaintiff and the Defendant to the broker through E Licensed Real Estate Agents.

2) The facts stated in Paragraph 1.C of the holding alone are insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement on the specific amount of down payment, intermediate payment and payment method, the specific amount, timing and method of payment, the time and method of delivery of real estate, etc., which are the essential elements of a sales contract. Rather, in light of the facts stated in Paragraph 1. D of the holding, it is reasonable to deem that the specific content of a contract had existed in a continuous consultation as a dynamic state.

3) The Plaintiff asserts that KRW 30 million paid to the Defendant is the down payment of the instant real estate sales contract. However, as seen in the preceding paragraph, it is difficult to conclude that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the essential matters of the sales contract at the time when the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and the down payment in accordance with trade practice constitutes 10% of the purchase price. In light of the fact that the purchase price of the instant real estate claimed by the Plaintiff is KRW 710 million and the said KRW 30 million is not the ordinary down payment, it is reasonable to regard the Plaintiff’s payment to be a kind of deposit paid to the Defendant on the basis of the negotiation of the sales contract that will continue to continue to exist while the Plaintiff revealed that he had the intent to conclude the sales contract of the instant real estate.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is rejected.

Judges 00 00

Judges Han Han-han