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

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

1. On July 7, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 108,00,000 from Defendant B, under the brokerage of Defendant C, a licensed real estate agent, KRW 400,000,000,000,000 from Defendant B, in lieu of the payment by accepting the obligation to refund the lease deposit equivalent to the same amount, and the down payment of KRW 450,000,000,000,000,000 shall be paid by September 7, 2015, and the fact that Defendant B paid KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000, including the provisional contract deposit paid on July 6, 2015, does not conflict between the parties, or that it may be acknowledged as follows:

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff purchased the instant commercial building for the purpose of obtaining rent revenue, and confirmed that there was no overdue payment of monthly rent from the Defendants at the time of the sales contract. However, the Defendants asserted that the monthly rent was overdue at the time of the sales contract, and primarily asserted that the Defendants deceptioned the Plaintiff, and the Defendants primarily sought the return of the down payment due to the cancellation of the sales contract against the Defendant B, and the Defendants in preliminary demand compensation for damages of the down payment equivalent to the down payment due to joint tort.

B. Before Defendant B’s purchase and sale of the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff, Defendant B leased the said commercial building with a deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, and the lease period from November 3, 2013 to November 2, 2015. The fact that the monthly rent for one month was overdue at the time of the instant sales contract between Defendant B and the Plaintiff may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as indicated in the evidence No. 1, or that there was no dispute between the parties, or that there was no delay in payment of the monthly rent for the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant sales contract. However, each of the statements stated in the evidence No. 3 through 5, alone, does not mean that the Defendants did not delay the monthly rent for the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff.