1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 23, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant with regard to E multi-household housing newly constructed in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter referred to as “instant loan”) with the purchase price of KRW 1,980,00,000 (35,000,000 when a contract is concluded, intermediate payment of KRW 65,000,000 on December 30, 2016, and the remainder of KRW 1,880,000 on February 28, 2017).

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 35,000,000 to the Defendant as the down payment under the instant sales contract.

On December 28, 2016, the Defendant leased the instant loan G heading to F.

C. Around January 2017, the Defendant, as H’s broker, sold the instant loan L L L, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 17, 2017, and sold the instant loan L, to K around February 2017, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 3, 2017.

The loan of this case was approved on January 20, 2017, and registration of ownership was made in the name of the defendant on February 3, 2017.

E. On May 31, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “The instant sales contract was cancelled on the grounds of double selling by the Defendant, and the repayment of a double payment is demanded.” On June 19, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the instant sales contract several times on the grounds of heavy payment and notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the instant sales contract.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s payment date of intermediate payment under the instant sales contract was December 30, 2016, but the payment date of intermediate payment was changed to that of the Defendant’s registration date of preservation of ownership on the instant loan, and thus, the Plaintiff did not delay the payment obligation of intermediate payment.

Nevertheless, the Defendant arbitrarily sold part of the loan of this case to a third party, and thus, the Defendant primarily violated the sales contract of this case to the Plaintiff.