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

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. Defendant B registered his business with the trade name of “D” and operates a photographic franchise called “E”, and Defendant C is the head of the team as it is between Defendant B and the head of the team.

B. On December 21, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased two inflammable equipment from Defendant B in KRW 14,000,000, and Defendant B had the Plaintiff conduct an unmanned photographic agent business via the said inflammable equipment, and entered into an E-Agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with each other, such as having the Plaintiff conduct an unmanned photographic agent business, taking charge of operating and publicizing the said inflammable equipment AS and service products, having customer service agencies and advertising, calculating credit card sales, and depositing it into the agency’s account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim on the revocation of deception, the plaintiff did not have any fact that the defendants could obtain a profit from the sales of at least KRW 600,000 per Insuasion equipment and at least KRW 480,000,000 per Insuasion, and the expenses did not mean expenses, and the contract of this case was concluded in accordance with the defendants' deception, such as where the available place and date of installation are modified and delayed payment unlike the promise, and where the plaintiff did not fulfill his duty of publicity, such as Blog marketing, etc., and the plaintiff revoked the contract of this case. Therefore, the defendants are jointly obligated to jointly restore the contract of this case to its original state, and thus, they are obliged to pay the amount of KRW 14,00,00

On the other hand, it would be difficult to say that there is little exaggeration or false representation in advertising and advertising of goods, as long as it is acceptable in light of the general commercial practice and good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da19515, 95Da19522, Jul. 28, 1995). Thus, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff or the circumstances incurred by the Plaintiff are sufficient to be contrary to the ordinary commercial practice and the good faith principle.