1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is that the reasoning for this decision of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) As to the primary claim, the Plaintiff issued a merchandise coupon purchase price to the Defendant and entered into a brokerage contract for the supply of the corresponding merchandise coupon, and paid KRW 214,300,000 from May 8, 2017 to August 31, 2017.

The plaintiff has a duty to cancel the above contract on the ground of default, and the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 134,300,000 (the amount calculated by subtracting the amount of KRW 80,000,000 which was refunded by the defendant from the above 214,30,000) and damages for delay.

(2) The brokerage contract is a contract under which the client asks the broker to introduce and mediate the conclusion of the contract on the sale, exchange, lease, and other acquisition, loss, and transfer of rights concerning the object of brokerage, and the contract is to pay remuneration when the contract is concluded upon the completion of the brokerage.

In full view of the following facts: (a) there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion; (b) the Plaintiff did not directly pay purchase funds to the merchandise coupon seller; and (c) there is no evidence to deem that there was a specific contractual relationship with the merchandise coupon seller; and (d) there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant received the corresponding fees from the Plaintiff whenever the merchandise coupon was purchased, the Defendant appears to have purchased the merchandise coupon as a party to a sales contract,

The plaintiff's primary claim on the premise that the mediation contract has been concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant is without merit.

B. (1) In a case where the contractual relationship between the alleged plaintiff and the defendant is recognized as partnership relationship, the plaintiff becomes unable to expect smooth partnership operation because trust relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is broken.