1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 10, 2017, the Plaintiff (Plaintiff 1) as a broker of a licensed real estate agent C on July 10, 2017, Daegu Suwon-gu D apartment, 102 Dong 1603 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant and the Defendant.

(2) On July 11, 2017, at the office of a licensed real estate agent around 20:00, the Plaintiff unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the contract on the ground that the purchase price of the instant apartment is below the price of the instant apartment, and that the Plaintiff would sell the price of the instant apartment.

3) Since a sales contract was rescinded by the Defendant’s simple change, it shall be deemed that there was an implied agreement between the parties, considering the transactional practice, or the Defendant’s intent to pay the cancellation money (the Defendant expressed an intention to additionally pay KRW 10 million, apart from the return of the down payment) even if the sales contract was not concluded, inasmuch as the contract was rescinded by the Defendant’s simple change.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not reach a sales contract due to the lack of agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s trade intent, and the contract was concluded.

Even if there is no special agreement to pay a down payment, the plaintiff can only receive compensation for actual damage caused by the failure to perform the contract, and the down payment is not a penalty.

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

(a) In order to establish the relevant legal doctrine, it is required that there exists a mutual agreement between the parties, and such mutual agreement is not necessary with respect to all matters constituting the content of the relevant contract, but there is a specific agreement or at least a specific future agreement with respect to the essential or important matters of the relevant contract.