1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted by adding to the whole purport of the pleadings the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6 (including paper numbers).

On August 30, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract with respect to the Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on a purchase price of KRW 1180 million (the contract date, the first intermediate payment of KRW 320 million until September 28, 2018; the second intermediate payment of KRW 100 million until October 31, 2018; and the second intermediate payment of KRW 680 million until December 4, 2018; and the Plaintiff deposited the Defendant’s deposit account in KRW 30 million.

B. On August 31, 2018, the Defendant transferred his intent not to conclude a contract through an intermediary prior to the conclusion of a sales contract, and returned KRW 10 million out of the amount paid by the Plaintiff.

C. The broker re-reconvened the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the purchase price of KRW 1.2 billion (the contract amount of KRW 80 million is the contract date, the intermediate payment of KRW 320 million until September 28, 2018, and the balance of KRW 800 million within December 7, 2018). On August 31, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 60 million to the Defendant’s deposit account.

On September 3, 2018, the Defendant remitted KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff’s deposit account. On September 4, 2018, the Plaintiff sent a notice to the Defendant that “In order to cancel a sales contract, the Plaintiff shall pay the contract amount of KRW 80 million with the cancellation amount until September 11, 2018, and otherwise, the Plaintiff shall perform the instant sales contract.”

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) As to the claim for the payment of the cancellation fee, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff should additionally pay the remainder KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff, even though the Defendant paid KRW 160,000,000,000, which is a double of the down payment, by cancelling the cancellation fee.

(2) According to the above facts of recognition, the real estate of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant is examined.