1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning stated by this court in this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the primary assertion (a claim for the agreed amount) was that the Defendants were to sell the instant land to the Plaintiff on the face of the Plaintiff, on the condition that the Plaintiff colored the purchaser of the instant land and sold the instant land to him, and the Defendants agreed with the Plaintiff and the Defendants to return the down payment of KRW 600 million paid by G to the Plaintiff.

In accordance with such agreement, the Plaintiff: (a) sought physical inspection of the persons to purchase the instant land in KRW 8 billion and introduced them to the Defendants; (b) however, the Defendants could not sell the instant land in KRW 8 billion; and (c) did not reach the conclusion of a sales contract on the ground that the Defendants could not sell the instant land in KRW 8 billion; and (d) as such, the Defendants obstructed the fulfillment of the terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement

Therefore, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the plaintiff 60 million won and damages for delay as stipulated in the above agreement.

Even if the above agreement does not exist to all the Defendants, Defendant B explicitly agreed to return the amount equivalent to the down payment to the Plaintiff and subsequently, Defendant B sold 5/40 of the shares in Defendant B’s land of this case to Defendant D and Defendant C in KRW 812,50,000, whichever is less than 5/40 of the down payment (=60 million x 5/40). Thus, Defendant B is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 75 million out of the down payment amount (=60 million x 5/40).

B. The gist of the conjunctive assertion (Claim for Collection) G has a claim against the Defendants for unjust enrichment return equivalent to the down payment due to the cancellation of the instant sales contract.

Even if the down payment is scheduled for the amount of damages, it should be reduced excessively in light of the background of rescission of the instant sales contract.

The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.