1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 5, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded a sales contract with the Defendant, through the brokerage of D, which operates C real estate; (b) purchased KRW 132 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (c) on the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million as the down payment under the contract for penalty (the seller’s cancellation of the contract and the buyer’s cancellation of the contract; (d) paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant on the same day under the contract for penalty (the contract for penalty) with the content that he/she purchases KRW 1132 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Defendant unilaterally asserted that the instant sales contract was revoked, and returned KRW 10 million received.

In order for the Defendant to cancel the instant sales contract, it is necessary to repay a double of the down payment pursuant to the instant penalty agreement or Article 565(1) of the Civil Act, so the Defendant shall additionally pay the Plaintiff KRW 10 million.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is merely the fact that the Defendant requested H who operates G real estate to sell and purchase the instant commercial building, and there is no request from D who operates C real estate in its neighborhood to sell and sell the instant commercial building.

D merely listen to the lawsuit that the commercial building of this case was sent as a ticket and unilaterally informed the account number of the defendant to the plaintiff without consultation with the defendant. Thus, the sales contract of this case or the agreement on the penalty of this case did not constitute a contract of this case.

2. Determination

A. Since there is a dispute as to whether the sales contract of this case or the agreement for penalty of this case is established, it is first examined as to this.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and witness H and D of the first instance court, the defendant offered the commercial building of this case to G real estate and C real estate as a substitute on July 2, 2016, and the plaintiff operated C real estate on July 5, 2016.