The defendant's KRW 35 million for each of the plaintiffs and its 6% per annum from March 1, 2019 to April 10, 2020.

In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the exclusive right to sell buildings in lots, etc., and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the exclusive right to sell buildings in lots, etc., the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to exclusive right to sell buildings in lots, etc.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to recover from its original state each of the plaintiffs 35 million won and the delayed damages.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant is a company engaged in the new construction, sale, and execution of a building. The plaintiffs pay 70 million won to the defendant on January 28, 2019. The defendant borrowed the plaintiff on the same day from the plaintiff on January 28, 2019 and made payment of the above money to the plaintiff on February 28, 2019 with the promise to pay the full amount of the borrowed money without the molding the plaintiff on February 28, 2019. The borrower will prepare and submit a loan certificate to implement this.

*The proviso clause: (i) grant the exclusive right to sell the Dialtel sales agency in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Provided, That this shall apply after obtaining a construction permit). (ii) The security deposit for sale shall be adjusted to increase or decrease at the time of subsequent repayment of the borrowed amount.

The fact that “the document stating the loan certificate was prepared and issued,” and the defendant obtained a building permit for the building of this case on March 26, 2019, the fact that the sale agency contract was not concluded because the intent between the plaintiffs and the defendant as to the sales agency fee does not coincide, and that the plaintiffs waiver the right to monopoly of the sale agency on the second hearing date of this court.

It is recognized that the statement was made.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiffs lent KRW 70 million to the defendant on January 28, 2019, and the defendant granted the plaintiffs the exclusive right to sell the building of this case, but if the sales agency contract is concluded thereafter, the above loan should be substituted for the sales deposit. Since then, the sales agency contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant should be substituted.