1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On June 23, 2004, upon the Defendant’s recommendation, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the right to sell commercial buildings in a housing site development zone (hereinafter “instant right to sell commercial buildings”) with a sales company that was the actual representative C, and Seoul Special Metropolitan City DD housing site development zone (hereinafter “instant right”) with a sales contract for the right to sell commercial buildings in KRW 65,00,000, and paid all the sales amount on July 23, 2014.

B. On January 20, 2006, the Defendant established E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) and issued a receipt to the Plaintiff, which entered into a sales contract for the instant commercial building sales right (a certificate No. 1), 65,000,000 won retroactively between E and E on February 23, 2006, on the ground that the contract for the instant commercial building sales right may be transferred to the Plaintiff.

(A) Evidence No. 2) (c)

However, as a result of the plaintiff's inquiry into the SH Corporation, the SH Corporation specially supplied the right to sell commercial buildings within the Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Housing Site Development Zone (business loss, agricultural loss, and livestock loss) to those subject to livelihood measures, and ② sold them by adding the first club around May 2007, and ③ sold them in the same order of supply, and ③ sold them in the same order of supply by electronic lot in the case of the same order of supply, and ④ the SH Corporation directly sold the right to sell commercial buildings or entrusted the sale to the commercial sales company.

Thus, the defendant, at the time of concluding the first sales contract with the plaintiff, received the sales price without the ability or intent to sell the sales right of this case at the time of concluding the sales contract, so the conclusion of the sales contract itself constitutes a tort against the plaintiff, and even if the defendant did not fully take part in the preparation of the contract at the time of concluding the contract with the first selling company called "C" on June 2

Even if Gap's Nos. 1 and 2 are prepared to the plaintiff, it is impossible to secure the right to sell the commercial building of this case to the plaintiff.