1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap evidence No. 1-1-3, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 1-1, and Eul evidence No. 2, and there is no counter-proof.

On December 21, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for the right to use and benefit (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with Defendant B to purchase KRW 153,00,000, the right to use and benefit from the Do governor-ro 16, Do governor-ro Do governor-ro 16 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

B. According to the sales contract of the instant sales contract, the right to use and benefit from the instant commercial building is indicated as terminated on September 30, 2019, and the explanation of the transfer of the right to use and benefit is indicated as substituted by the sales contract of the right to use and benefit. According to Article 6(2) of the contract of the right to use and benefit, the right to use and benefit expires at the end of the period of use

C. Defendant C is a licensed real estate agent who arranged the instant sales contract.

On December 21, 2016, the Plaintiff and Defendant B concluded a lease agreement with Defendant B to lease the instant commercial building in KRW 20,000,000 for the instant commercial building; the deposit was to be deducted from the purchase price of the instant sales contract; and the Plaintiff paid KRW 133,00,000 to the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant commercial building should be entirely attributed to Chuncheon on and after October 2019, and the previous right to use and profit from the commercial building is not guaranteed. Although the Defendants should newly sell the commercial building or deliver the commercial building in Chuncheon, they should be guaranteed the Plaintiff’s right to use and profit from the commercial building even after September 30, 2019, and there is no problem. The Plaintiff’s revocation of the instant sales contract due to the Defendants’ deception or the Plaintiff’s mistake, and Defendant B is the restitution to the original state, and Defendant C is the intermediary, and the breach of duty to explain.