1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On May 19, 201, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) concluded a sales contract with the Defendant’s husband and his agent with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as KRW 332.6 million; and (b) paid the down payment of KRW 30 million on the day when concluding the sales contract with the Defendant’s husband and his agent.

Since then, the plaintiff confirmed the exact location of the above real estate, but it was different from the location that C actually informed.

Therefore, the plaintiff primarily cancels the above sales contract by serving the copy of the complaint of this case on the ground of the plaintiff's mistake in the important part of the above sales contract as a preliminary reason for C's deception. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the down payment of KRW 30 million and the down payment of KRW 30 million, which is equivalent to the down payment for damages, as stipulated in Article 6 of the above sales contract.

Meanwhile, on June 16, 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account at the request of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the said money to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) The fact that the Plaintiff and C, an agent of the Defendant, concluded a sales contract for the instant real estate owned by the Defendant, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid 30 million won to the Defendant as the down payment does not conflict between the parties.

However, at the time of the instant sales contract, it is not sufficient to accept the testimony of the Health Team, the witness D, and E with respect to whether the pertinent specific object does not coincide with the instant real estate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s main and conjunctive assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(2) According to the evidence evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff is deemed to have paid KRW 15 million to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account on June 16, 2011, but the Defendant is out of the real estate sales balance.