1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for this is that this court’s reasoning is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 5-16). Thus, this court’s reasoning is acceptable under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff asserted the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim that D, a public official in charge of the Defendant’s sale, was able to resell the instant commercial building at any time and concluded the instant sales contract with the intent to resell the commercial building upon the Plaintiff’s request, but D ultimately did not resell the instant commercial building.

With the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, the plaintiff cancelled the sales contract of this case on the grounds of the defendant's non-performance of the resale promise, ② cancelled the sales contract of this case on the grounds of the defendant's deception as to the possibility of resale or resale intention of the commercial building of this case, so the defendant is obligated to return the down payment of KRW 134,00,000 paid to the plaintiff, or ③ the defendant is obligated to compensate for damages equivalent to the down payment suffered by the plaintiff due to D's tort by deception as above.

3. Determination

A. The testimony of the witness B of the first instance court to the effect that D promised to resell the commercial building of this case to the Plaintiff as to the claim for the cancellation of the sales contract of this case is difficult to believe it as is, and it is insufficient to recognize the fact of the resale promise only with the statement of the evidence No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

However, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff and Eul who visited D prior to the conclusion of the contract for sale in this case stated that they will be able to resell the commercial building in this case and put them at premium. It is acknowledged that they recommended the conclusion of the contract for sale in this case, but only such fact alone, it is deemed that the defendant's resale of the commercial building in this case becomes the contents of the contract for sale in this case and the defendant bears the duty to resell the commercial building in this case.