1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 21, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on the sales price of KRW 630 million with respect to the instant real estate, namely, KRW 212 square meters for Pyeongtaek-si C, KRW 52 square meters for D large scale and the instant real estate reinforced concrete roof (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and paid KRW 60 million for the Defendant the down payment.

B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the first floor among the multi-family houses of the instant real estate (hereinafter “multi-family houses”) was used by changing the purpose of the instant real estate rather than the office for the purpose indicated in the building ledger, and the fourth floor was used as the kitchen and the toilet, but the extended part was not registered in the register.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence, witness E and F testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion shall return to the plaintiff the sales contract amounting to KRW 60 million already received for the following reasons.

The agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the instant sales contract was not concluded and became effective.

Even if it is not so, the first floor of the multi-family house in this case has been illegally changed, and the fourth floor has been illegally extended, so it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the sales contract due to defects in the object of the sales contract.

In addition, because the defendant did not notify the above defects, thereby deceiving the plaintiff, and as a result, the plaintiff made an error in the important part of the terms of the contract of this case, the contract of this case is revoked.

3. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the instant sales contract was effective, as it was based on the facts as seen earlier, prior to the determination of the invalidity of the sales contract, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone lacks to deem the instant sales contract null and void, and it can be acknowledged otherwise.