1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Basic facts are Defendant B Co., Ltd. (former trade name: F., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant Company”) that is engaged in real estate sale and sales agency business, and Defendant C, D, and E are employees of the Defendant Company.

The purport of the evidence No. 3 and the entire argument of the Plaintiff is as follows: (a) the introduction of Defendant D, an elementary school, to purchase real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) from the Defendant Company around September 2012, 201.

(1) The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on September 14, 2013, each of the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff paid the Defendant Company the purchase price for each of the instant land, which was KRW 228 million, in total, KRW 19 million on September 24, 2012; (b) the Plaintiff paid the Defendant Company the purchase price for each of the instant land, KRW 13 million on September 24, 2012; and (c) the Plaintiff paid KRW 228 million on October 9, 15, 2015, KRW 6 million on October 9, 2013; and (d) each of the instant land was completed on January 21, 2013, such as the Young-gu District Court Yeongdeungpo Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch (No. 628, 629, 630 on January 21, 2013.

The plaintiff entered into the sales contract of this case on the ground that the plaintiff was granted a building permit for the defendant C, D, and E to carry out a pension construction project or housing project after forming the land of this case as a housing site, but the land of this case is left alone in the state of forests and fields, although the contract of this case is now concluded. The plaintiff did not have any dispute about the ground for recognition, the plaintiff's statement of No. 1 through 3, 3, 5-1 through 3, and 18-1, respectively, and the purport of the whole argument of the plaintiff's argument.

The plaintiff shall revoke the sales contract of this case by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case on the grounds of the above defendants' fraud.

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 228 million and interest thereon, as restitution following the cancellation of the contract.

Defendant C, D, and E are liable for tort caused by fraud to the Plaintiff by such deception.