1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On April 19, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) as a broker of the licensed real estate agent C, the Plaintiff planned to enter into a lease agreement with respect to the D Apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant as KRW 420 million; and (b) transferred KRW 500,000 to the Defendant in order to obtain the right of priority for the conclusion of the lease agreement.

However, the Defendant agreed to enter into the lease contract with another person who presented the deposit amount of KRW 40 million, but did not enter into the lease contract with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, who did not enter into the lease contract with another person, did not enter into the lease contract, concluded the lease contract amount of KRW 430 million on the deposit amount of KRW 430 million, but the Plaintiff refused it and demanded the Defendant to return the deposit amount of KRW 5 million.0 million.

Therefore, since the lease contract on the apartment of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant was not concluded, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 5 million won of unjust enrichment and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant requested the G real estate office designated by the former lessee F of the instant apartment to enter into a lease agreement on the instant apartment, and was unable to reach a final agreement on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 430 million at the end of mediation, and received KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff as the down payment. Therefore, the said KRW 5 million is part of the down payment under the lease agreement on the instant apartment between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

However, following the date of the conclusion of the above lease contract, the Defendant received notification from the Plaintiff to the effect that the above lease contract was destroyed because it entered into with other articles, and immediately received notification from the former lessee F to the effect that he would maintain the previous lease contract on the apartment of this case. Thus, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

2. Determination

A. We examine whether the lease contract on the instant apartment between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded, and the contract was concluded.