1. The plaintiff's appeal against the main lawsuit and counterclaim against the defendant B and all appeals against the defendant C are dismissed.

2...

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence No. 1-1-4 and No. 7.

Plaintiff

On July 22, 2013, the Ulsan District Court E voluntarily held the auction procedure on July 22, 2013 with respect to the land and buildings owned by Ulsan-gu G and its ground (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”).

B. On January 14, 2014, when the auction procedure was in progress, Defendant B entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff, a real estate broker, with the introduction of Defendant C, with the purchase price of KRW 290 million as to the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and the contract deposit of KRW 30 million was concluded on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 40 million as well as KRW 220 million as to the remainder of KRW 17,000 on the same month, and the remainder of KRW 22,00,000,000 on the 22th of the same month, respectively, and the auction procedure was revoked by paying the debt to D, which is a mortgagee, as a sum of the down payment and intermediate payment, and the down payment of KRW 30 million is kept by Defendant C, and the down payment of KRW 30 million as a basis for compensation for damage

C. Defendant B, accordingly, delivered the down payment of KRW 30 million to Defendant C on January 14, 2014.

The instant real estate was sold to a third party on January 15, 2014 at the above auction procedure for KRW 335 million.

E. On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants that “Defendant B did not pay intermediate payments, and Defendant C would pay the down payment in its custody to the Plaintiff” (hereinafter “instant cancellation notification”).

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. At the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff asserted that the auction procedure continued because the Defendants agreed to revoke the auction procedure as the down payment and the intermediate payment did not perform it. Therefore, the instant sales contract was concluded by the Defendants.