2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The defendant is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

B. The real estate listed in the separate sheet was illegally expanded and used as a parking lot at approximately 10.9 square meters at the time of approval for the use of the building.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) in total, even before the parking lot is invaded.

Around March 2014, the Defendant divided the instant real estate into two, and leased part of the instant real estate to D. D operated a coffee shop (hereinafter “instant coffee shop”). Around the same time, the remainder of the instant real estate was leased to E, and E operated a washing shop (hereinafter “instant washing shop”).

All of the instant coffee shop and the instant laundry occupies a parking lot part that was illegally expanded as above, and the part where the instant laundry was invaded is far more larger than the part where the instant laundry was invaded.

E. On July 5, 2014, the Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant real estate at KRW 315 million from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and agreed to succeed to the status of a lessor under each lease agreement entered into with D and E, and paid the Defendant the down payment amount of KRW 50 million on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1 and 4-2, witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff asserted the cancellation of the declaration of intent by fraud only committed the part approved as a parking lot in the instant laundry, but the instant coffee shop was not in violation of the parking lot part. The instant sales contract was made by means of fraud.