1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence Nos. 1 to 4; (c) evidence No. 1; and (d) evidence No. 1; and (e) evidence No. D and E’s testimony.

On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the land north-gu C and the multi-family house with the fourth floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the purchase price of KRW 620,00,000, out of the purchase price, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 400,000 in lieu of the Plaintiff’s acceptance of the Defendant’s obligation to lend a secured loan and the obligation to return a lease deposit, and the remainder amount of KRW 20,00,000 on June 4, 2013.

B. On May 31, 2013, the Plaintiff proposed that the Defendant pay KRW 30,000,000 as the purchase price necessary for the loan would be KRW 720,000,000, and the Defendant consented thereto. On that day, the Plaintiff, along with the Defendant, prepared a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 720,000,000, and paid KRW 30,000 as the down payment to the Defendant.

C. At the time of the preparation of the above sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the seller shall compensate for a double amount of the down payment, and that the buyer may claim the return of the down payment if he/she gives up the contract.

The plaintiff does not pay the balance to the defendant so far.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment thereon

A. The gist of the cause of the instant claim asserted by the Plaintiff is as follows.

The Plaintiff intended to borrow the instant real estate as collateral and pay the remainder KRW 220,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was also aware of the aforementioned circumstances.

In order to obtain a loan of the real estate in this case as security, each lease contract between the defendant and the 16 lessee was required, and the defendant has to do so.