A. On October 16, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased the above building and its site (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (E) from the Defendants in KRW 6,775,00,000.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

On November 29, 2012, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant building and its site.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2

2. As to the claim for damages due to the voluntary change in the landscape area

A. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, about 10 vehicles were installed in the front part of the instant building as well as indoor mechanical parking facilities where approximately 5 cars are parked in the front part of the instant building in addition to the indoor mechanical parking facilities that can be parked (hereinafter “instant parking space”). (The above parking space in the front part of the instant building is referred to as “instant parking space”).

(2) However, the remainder of the parking space of this case, excluding the area that can be parked, was permitted as landscaped area, and the use of which was arbitrarily changed to outdoor parking lot.

3) Nonparty F, a lessee of the first floor of the instant building, filed an application for change of the purpose of use with the Songpa-gu Office to operate a entertainment room business, and heard the answer that the change of the purpose of use cannot be made if the instant parking space is not restored to the landscape area. On July 19, 2013, Nonparty F, a lessee of the instant parking space, requested the Plaintiff, a lessor, to resolve the said problem. (4) On July 19, 2013, KRW 32,000 is required to restore the instant parking space to the landscape area. In such a case, the market price of the instant building is reduced to KRW 177,00,000 by reducing the parking area.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4, 5, Eul evidence 1, and appraiser G's appraisal result

B. According to the facts of the judgment as to the cause of the claim 1, the instant sales contract is deemed to have been concluded.