1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts are acknowledged as either of the parties to a dispute or as a whole together with the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 2:

A. On June 14, 2018, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to pay KRW 205,640,000 for the third floor D of Pyeongtaek-si building 3 as follows (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment and the first intermediate payment as stipulated in the instant sales contract, but did not pay the second intermediate payment.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion stated that “If the Plaintiff pays only the down payment and the first intermediate payment, the Defendant is responsible for the payment of the down payment and the first intermediate payment, the Plaintiff would have the lessee prepare the second intermediate payment by receiving the deposit from the lessee by the date of the designation of the occupancy, and the third intermediate payment will be included in the balance so that the loan can be implemented.”

The plaintiff paid the down payment and the first intermediate payment to the defendant, but the defendant did not fulfill his obligation to receive the lease deposit from the tenant and to make the second intermediate payment prepare.

Therefore, since the plaintiff cancels the sales contract of this case, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of the down payment paid by the plaintiff to its original state and the penalty of 20,564,000 won under the first intermediate payment and the sales contract of this case (10% of the purchase price).

B. In the judgment of the defendant, it is not possible to accept the plaintiff's agreement that "if the plaintiff pays only the down payment and the first intermediate payment, it is responsible for the defendant's side and the tenant is entitled to receive the deposit from the tenant until the designated date of occupancy, and it is not possible to accept the second intermediate payment after considering all the evidence submitted by the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.