1. Defendant D’s KRW 36,700,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 10, 2004 to July 23, 2014, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the main claim

A. On June 11, 2004, the Plaintiff, the primary cause of the Plaintiff, concluded a sales contract with Defendant B’s agent, setting the sales amount of KRW 36.7 million with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as indicated in the separate sheet (payment of KRW 16.7 million on the date of the contract, and payment of KRW 20 million on July 10, 2004), and paid KRW 16.7 million to Defendant C on the date of the contract.

The Plaintiff requested Defendant B to pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate at the same time. However, Defendant B, on January 27, 2015, stated that the Plaintiff did not intend to complete the sales contract even if he/she received any balance on the second date for pleading of the instant case, and expressed his/her intent of refusal of performance.

Therefore, since the real estate sales contract of this case was impossible to be executed due to Defendant B’s responsible cause, pursuant to Article 4 of the real estate sales contract of this case, Defendant B should pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 34.4 million, which is a double of the down payment of KRW 16.7 million, as damages.

B. Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, the Plaintiff did not pay the remainder to the Defendant B on the payment date of the instant real estate sales balance agreed on July 10, 2004.

Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant real estate sales contract, like Defendant B’s assertion, was null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the instant contract due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the remainder, and Defendant B’s refusal to perform after the instant sales contract becomes null and void, and Defendant B is liable for negligence.

The plaintiff cannot be deemed to have claimed the amount equivalent to twice the down payment for this reason as damages.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's primary claim.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant C did not have any delegation from Defendant B.