1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff contacted the Defendant through “D Real Estate” (the Plaintiff’s side broker) and “E Real Estate” (the Defendant’s side broker) in order to purchase the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment and 105 Dong 201 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On July 15, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 4,000,00 to the Defendant on July 15, 2017, when a talking about the purchase price, etc. through both brokers was underway.

(E) At the request of “E Real Estate”, the Defendant informed his account number; hereinafter “instant money”).

In order to conclude the contract, the Defendant returned 4,000,000 won to the Plaintiff on July 24, 2017.

On the other hand, on July 15, 2017, immediately after the transfer of the above money to the Defendant, the Plaintiff requested a person related to “F real estate” to sell G apartment owned by him/her, but revoked the sale of the said G apartment on July 23, 2017, stating that the purchase of the instant apartment did not proceed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4 evidence, Eul 1, 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the provisional contract amount in addition to the provisional contract amount already returned to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff refused to conclude the provisional contract and terminated the provisional contract while the plaintiff made a provisional contract after paying the money in advance from the defendant for the purchase of the apartment of this case and agreed on a schedule for the conclusion of the provisional contract. The plaintiff asserts that ① the defendant is obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the provisional contract amount in addition to the provisional contract amount already returned to the plaintiff, and ② The plaintiff's apartment was trying to sell the apartment of this case to prepare for the purchase price under the provisional contract of this case and this contract, but the defendant should compensate for the damage amounting to 6,100,000

B. The above facts of recognition as to the claim for the return of the cancellation fee 1, and the evidence and arguments mentioned above.