1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Fact-finding;

A. On January 9, 2016, Defendant B set the sales amount of KRW 750 million with respect to Kimpo-si D (hereinafter “instant store”) KRW 106 (hereinafter “instant store”), and sold the instant sales to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant sales”) as a licensed real estate agent. Defendant C mediated the instant sales as a licensed real estate agent.

B. At the time of the instant sales contract, Defendant B leased the said store to E for the purpose of the mutual restaurant called “F”, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the said lease contract.

C. On March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the full purchase price and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant store.

According to the sales contract and the commercial building management rules of the commercial building of this case, there is a provision restricting the types of business that the store of this case is unable to establish and operate a pharmacy.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and determination as to the cause of the instant claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① purchased the instant store (the instant store had been occupied by a number of medical institutions) while checking a place suitable for the establishment of a pharmacy. The Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff of the restriction on the type of business that the Plaintiff could not establish and operate the instant store without notifying the Plaintiff of the fact that the Plaintiff was aware of the purchase of the instant store for the purpose of establishing a pharmacy. Defendant C issued a confirmation statement of the object of brokerage that “No limit exists for the use of the instant store.”

② Ultimately, by deceiving the Plaintiff (joint tort) by deceiving the Plaintiff, the Defendants sustained damages equivalent to the difference between the market price and the sales price (the Plaintiff purchased the instant store at a higher price than the market price for the purpose of establishing the pharmacy) of the pharmacy’s use (the amount equivalent to KRW 50 million), such as taxes and public charges paid in the course of the registration of the instant store, and the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant C.