1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The facts following the facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 8-1, 2, and Eul evidence 3-3.

Defendant E is the former owner of H Building No. 502 of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 502 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the trade name of “N” and “N.”

B. On April 13, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant F, a sales agent, to purchase the instant real estate owned by Defendant E in the purchase price of KRW 1550 million (However, the sales contract to apply for the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate was retroactively prepared as of January 10, 2014; hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the full purchase price to Defendant E, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff regarding the instant real estate on the same day.

The area of the section for exclusive use on the entire certificate of the registered matters of the instant real estate is 23.95 square meters, and 9 square meters among the instant real estate was extended in violation of the Building Act.

E. On September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff received from the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul Metropolitan Government) the “2014 Air Force Recovery Manual,” and did not remove it, and paid the head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Seoul Metropolitan Government) KRW 347,620 on December 31, 2015, and KRW 469,90 on January 31, 2017, respectively, to order the correction thereof by October 12, 2015.

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendants did not properly explain whether the part of the instant real estate was expanded in the course of selling the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and whether the expanded part was an unlawful extension. This is an unlawful sale by intention or negligence.

As a result, the Plaintiff.