1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3:

On February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant at KRW 520,00,00 (Additional Tax separately) the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C and 109 of the first floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On April 14, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the remainder to the Defendant on April 14, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said real estate.

B. The relevant contents among the contracts for the sale of the instant real estate concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contracts”) are as follows.

The indication of real estate: A change of the location and the selling area may be increased or decreased according to the following circumstances: the total amount of value-added tax of KRW 312,00,000,000, and value-added tax of KRW 31,200,000,000, and KRW 551,200,000,000 according to the division under construction construction, and in such cases, the increase or decrease of the selling area shall be made at the time of payment of the balance by applying the average price.

Article 18 (Other Matters) The location and area of the co-owned portion following a design change may be changed, and Eul shall not raise any objection thereto, and Eul shall not request an increase or decrease in the store price.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the sales contract for the instant real estate was designated in so-called quantity. The sale area of the instant real estate at the time of the contract was 29.104 square meters (10.872 square meters of exclusive use area). However, as a result of confirmation on around April 2016 to sell the said real estate, the actual sale area was 24.804 square meters (18.232 square meters of exclusive use area) (24.804 square meters of common use area). Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim falls under 4.3 square meters as a request for reduction of the shortage to the Defendant pursuant to Articles 574 (2) and 572 of the Civil Act.