The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. A. Around October 2013, the Plaintiff requested that the bond be changed and paid KRW 70 million.

B. On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a housing redevelopment project agency agreement with the housing development project partnership (the head of the partnership) and the E (representative C) corporation, and paid the Defendant, etc. a total of KRW 170 million as security deposit by additionally paying KRW 100 million.

C. However, the defendant et al. concluded the same sales agency contract with the third party, and the defendant ultimately acquired 170 million won from the plaintiff as a sales agency deposit. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 170 million won, excluding 170 million won, excluding 1.7 million won, which has already been paid out of 3.4 billion won, as the sum of 1.7 million won and 1.7 million won, paid to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The facts of the Defendant are insufficient to readily conclude that the Plaintiff, without intent or ability to conclude a sales agency contract with the Plaintiff, deceivings the Plaintiff in order to defrauding KRW 170 million in the name of the sales agency deposit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s tort.

B. Even if the plaintiff's assertion is selected as a claim for damages on the ground of the defendant's non-performance of obligation, the sales agency contract for the plaintiff's assertion is recognized to be concluded between the plaintiff (tentative name) housing development project association and the stock company E, so the defendant's dispute is just and there is no evidence as to the amount of damages, such as the contract clause on the estimated amount of damages.

C. The Plaintiff agreed on December 18, 2018 that the Defendant would return the deposit for sale as a sales agent.