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

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

1. Basic facts

A. Upon introduction of Defendant B, the Plaintiff concluded each sales contract between Defendant C, D, E, F, and G as listed below:

(1) On November 29, 2010, Defendant D 2, 200, Defendant E- 3, 52,000,000 of a general commercial site for a housing site development zone in a broadbandn City on November 27, 2010, Defendant E, on November 27, 2010, 52,000,000 of a site for livelihood measures for a housing site development zone in a luminousn City on November 27, 2010, Defendant F. F. 4, 200,004, for livelihood measures for a housing site development zone in a luminousn City on November 27, 2010, 52,000 square meters of a living right (27 square meters) in a housing site development zone in a luminousn City on November 29, 2010; and 200,000 square meters of a residential area in a housing site development zone (20,500 square meters).

B. The Plaintiff paid the full purchase price to Defendant C, D, E, F, and G in accordance with each of the above sales contracts.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including each number for a case with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Defendant B and C alleged on the instant sales contract stated to the Plaintiff that “If Defendant C purchases 27 shares issued by Gwangju District Co., Ltd., which are held by Defendant C, it will not only become the shareholders of the said company, but also obtain the membership qualification of the commercial building association within the housing site development zone, and an officetel may be sold or distributed in cash by acquiring the right to sell an officetel newly built by the said company.” In fact, Defendant C did not hold 27 shares issued by Gwangju District Co., Ltd., and even if the Plaintiff acquired the said shares, it was not possible to acquire the membership qualification or the right to sell an officetel.”

However, as above, the Plaintiff entered into the sales contract of this case due to Defendant B and C’s deception, and Defendant C’s purchase price of KRW 53,000,000.