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

A. The Plaintiff intended to lease from the Defendant, in order to operate a English private teaching institute, the Yeonsu-gu Incheon Building Commercial Facilities C, 231, 232, and 233, which is owned by the Defendant, to operate the said three stores, and the Defendant was able to obtain one of the said three stores in lots.

B. On June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the said three stores from the Defendant at KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 220,000,000, and the Plaintiff would sell the said three stores to a third party. However, if the Defendant re-sales the said 233 to a third party, the Plaintiff promised to refund the down payment to the Plaintiff.

C. On June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a total of KRW 2 million and KRW 42.5 million. D.

On March 2014, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to sell the said No. 233 to a third party because it is difficult to operate a private teaching institute, and the Defendant also promised to return the sales contract amounting to KRW 42.5 million if sold again to a third party.

E. The Defendant, around December 2015, received the remainder after re-saleing the said 233 units to C.

F. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks payment of the sales contract amounting to KRW 42.5 million and damages for delay pursuant to the above agreement to the Defendant.

G. Since the Defendant belongs to the Plaintiff and forced the above 233 to sell in lots, it is the cause of the fraudulent contract by fraudulent means.

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks the return of the sales contract amounting to KRW 42.5 million to the Defendant.

2. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to refund the sales contract price only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, there is no legal basis to regard that the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void only on the grounds alleged by the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.