1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant’s husband C requested E employees of the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City to trade F apartment units No. 1202, 701 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant, and E advertised the purchase price of the said apartment units with KRW 425 million.

B. The Plaintiff had been engaged in the instant apartment as a broker of G Licensed Real Estate Agent H in Daejeon, and H and E had a mediation rate on the said transaction terms.

Accordingly, on May 27, 2017, each of the above employees agreed on the sales price of the instant apartment, KRW 423 million, and the remaining payment period on September 2017, the date of preparation of the contract, and KRW 5 million on June 6, 2017, and KRW 5 million. E notified the Defendant of the foregoing matters, and the Defendant informed the Defendant of the account number in the name of the Defendant.

C. On May 27, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5 million to the account under the name of the Defendant.

In addition, on June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 15 million to the account in the name of the Defendant without prior consultation with the Defendant.

On June 6, 2017, the Defendant agreed not to sell the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on June 6, 2017, which was signed with the Plaintiff, and returned KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on June 23, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, witness H and E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On May 27, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant with the purchase price of KRW 423 million as to the instant real estate. On May 27, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 20 million in total as the contract deposit, and KRW 15 million on June 1, 2017.

However, on June 6, 2017, the Defendant explicitly refused to perform the obligation by notifying the Plaintiff that he/she would not unilaterally conclude the contract.