The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On January 15, 2018, the Plaintiff and C entered into a sales agency contract with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff and C to sell and purchase the sales right to the E neighborhood living facilities of the Young-gu D Won-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant sales agency contract”). On behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff sold the sales right to the Fho Lake and G among the above neighborhood living facilities.

However, the execution of the contract of this case was impossible due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, such as that the representative director is changed due to the defendant's internal portion, after the conclusion of the contract of this case of vicarious sale, the contract of this case was reversed by concluding the contract of vicarious sale with the third party.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 100,000,000 won and damages for delay, which are part of the 509,584,000 won, which are the amount equivalent to the sales agency fee that the plaintiff can obtain, if the sales agency business was performed normally as compensation for damages to the plaintiff.

2. In light of the following facts and circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as follows: ① the contract term of the instant sales agency contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is up to March 25, 2018; ② the contract term of the sales agency contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is presumed not to have been extended or renewed; ② the sales agency contract between the above neighborhood living facilities was concluded after the termination of the contract term as above; ② there was a sales agency agreement between the Plaintiff, etc., and ③ the Plaintiff, not the Plaintiff, etc., to prepare a letter verifying that the sales agency contract of the instant sales agency is not an exclusive status to the Plaintiff; ③ the Plaintiff’s preparation of a letter verifying that the sales agency contract of this case is not an exclusive status to the Plaintiff.