1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. Registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage among the first preliminary claims by the plaintiff.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

On March 5, 2015, the Plaintiff introduced real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) listed in the separate sheet, which is owned by the Defendant, from a licensed real estate agent for the purchase price of KRW 400 million.

In order to purchase the instant real estate, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million on the day as a provisional contract deposit.

B. In concluding a sales contract on the instant real estate on March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) determined the sales price of the instant real estate as KRW 420 million; (b) written sales contract as KRW 420 million; (c) KRW 60 million; (d) an intermediate payment of KRW 20 million (payment on April 10, 2015); and (c) the remainder of KRW 340 million (payment on June 1, 2015).

C. On the day of the above contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant (i.e., the Defendant paid KRW 60 million as the down payment due to the difference between the purchase price and the actual transaction price under the contract) and paid KRW 20 million as the intermediate payment on April 10, 2015.

On June 25, 2015, the Defendant asserted the cancellation of the sales contract, and deposited KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff, as the principal deposit, as well as KRW 20,00,00,000.

The Plaintiff deposited KRW 10,00,000 on July 8, 2015, and KRW 30,000 on August 27, 2015 as the principal deposit, with the Defendant as the principal deposit. The Defendant received KRW 40,000,000 deposited by the Plaintiff on December 8, 2015.

2. On March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant the implementation of the procedures for ownership transfer registration based on a sales contract on the real estate stated in the separate sheet, but paid the purchase price in full.

The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove that the collateral security obligation, etc. was succeeded by the defendant on behalf of the defendant.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's first preliminary claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties to this case.