1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is located B, C, and Seo-gu, Incheon D, and E.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant’s broker engaging in real estate brokerage business to purchase the purchase price of KRW 5,490,000,000, Seo-gu Incheon-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant cartel”) that was jointly owned by B and C (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid the down payment of KRW 500,000,000 on the date of the contract.

B. According to the instant sales contract, the real estate broker is not liable for the seller or buyer’s nonperformance of this contract. Moreover, the brokerage commission is paid by both parties to this contract at the same time, and the brokerage commission is paid even if this contract is invalidated, cancelled or cancelled without the broker’s intention or negligence (Article 8), and the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage signed by the Plaintiff stated that “the brokerage commission shall be separately consulted.”

C. Since then, the Plaintiff, B, and C agreed to cancel the instant sales contract, and C agreed to return the down payment of KRW 500,000,000 to the Plaintiff by April 30, 2015.

On November 4, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of the content of demanding payment of KRW 49,410,000 for the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Despite the fact that the plaintiff's assertion was seriously occurring on the wall surface of the toilet of the Maurherto in this case, the defendant explained that there was no leakage on the wall of the Maurto in this case. Since the sales contract of this case was cancelled due to the reasons attributable to the defendant,

B. The Defendant’s assertion that there was no serious leakage in the instant telecom, and the Plaintiff reversed the contract by using the seller’s wife’s wife.

The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.