A. On September 14, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the Daho in Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant house”) in the purchase price of KRW 400 million, by requiring the housing of the duo structure to be residing with a large father’s family members.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). From September 14, 2018 to September 17, 2018, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 40 million to the Defendant.

B. The instant housing is a 6th floor and its upper floor, and toilets are installed in the upper floor, and the Plaintiff confirmed the current status and concluded the instant contract.

However, the upper floor of the instant house was built as a multi-level bank which could not be used as a residential space at the beginning, and accordingly, it was completed as a multi-level bank with no toilet, and obtained approval for use on May 29, 2018, and thereafter installed a toilet in a multi-level bank without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

C. On October 2018, the Plaintiff became aware of this fact, and around October 23, 2018, requested the Defendant side to reverse the instant contract and return the instant down payment.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff intended to purchase the instant house with the Defendant’s belief that the instant house was legally permitted to have a double-story structure. In fact, the part on the upper floor of the instant house was permitted to do so on a multiple basis. Ultimately, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract due to the Defendant’s deception or the Plaintiff’s mistake.

Since the plaintiff legally cancelled the contract of this case on the grounds of this, the defendant is obligated to return the down payment to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant at the time of entering into the contract of this case.