1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 300,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 9, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a sales agency contract with the Defendant and paid KRW 300 million to the Defendant as the sales agency deposit. The Defendant failed to perform its duty to take measures so that the Plaintiff may carry out the sales agency business.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 300 million and delay damages due to the restitution or return agreement following the cancellation of the contract for sale by lots.

B. The Defendant asserted that the sales agency contract was concluded with D, received KRW 300 million from D as the sales agency deposit, and returned KRW 120 million to D.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 16, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to grant the Plaintiff the right to sell goods in lots, under the premise that: (a) the Defendant and the Defendant, a representative director, has the right to sell goods in lots in the open-gu book of F University E, a corporation with the representative director; and (b) the Defendant had the right to sell goods in lots.

(hereinafter “instant sales agency contract”). (b)

On the same day, the plaintiff paid KRW 300 million to the defendant as a cashier's check, and received a receipt stating the receipt of KRW 300 million from the defendant.

C. After that, the Defendant lost the right to sell the land at Category C due to changes, etc. in the seller of the land at Category C and the method of selling the land, thereby being unable to grant the Plaintiff the right to sell the land as a sales agent.

Therefore, although the plaintiff requested the defendant to return 300 million won of the deposit for the sale of goods to the defendant several times, the defendant requested to return money to the plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A 1 to 3, Evidence A 4-1 and 2-2, Witness G's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. According to the facts of the above recognition, the defendant bears the obligation to grant the Plaintiff the right to sell the goods to the Plaintiff under the sales agency contract of this case, but the above obligation became impossible to perform.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's expression of intent to cancel.