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

A. On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase D hotel E units (hereinafter “instant hotel”) with the Defendant at KRW 189,864,00 (hereinafter “instant contract”) and paid down payment of KRW 18,986,40.

B. The instant hotel obtained approval for use on March 23, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff that the instant hotel is scheduled to enter a duty-free shop even though it does not have the intent and ability to operate the duty-free shop, and made the Plaintiff enter into the instant contract with the trust that “The Plaintiff shall have a serious business ability as a hotel equivalent to the fifth degree of the duty-free shop shop sales, and foreign tourists finding the coast as profit-making hotel will create enormous profits by having foreign tourists provide accommodation in the instant hotel for the purpose of the duty-free shop shopping.”

In addition, even though the defendant advertised as if he could enjoy a serious special subsidy by selling the hotel in this case during the period of the Pyeongtaek Winter Olympic Games in 2018, the hotel in this case was completed after the period of the Winter Winter Olympic Games expires.

Therefore, the contract of this case is concluded by fraud, and this is revoked, and the defendant is obliged to pay 37,972,800 won as down payment and penalty.

She also, if the Plaintiff knew that the hotel in this case did not have a duty-free shop store and that he did not have any tourist at all during the Olympic period, there was no reason to conclude the contract in this case, and this was caused by the Defendant’s active advertisements. Thus, the Plaintiff revoked the contract in this case on the ground of mistake and sought the return of the above amount of unjust enrichment.

B. (1) The advertisement of the product to be determined on the one hand as to the allegation of cancellation by deception.