1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the implementer and the contractor of the building C (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

B. On November 18, 2015, D entered into a contract with the Defendant to supply underground floor E (hereinafter “instant store”) in total amount of KRW 653,60,000 from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant supply contract”) and paid KRW 30,000,000, out of down payment of KRW 65,360,000 on December 17, 2015, the remainder of KRW 35,360,000 to each Defendant on January 28, 2016.

C. On December 17, 2015, the Plaintiff and D entered into a contract for the resale of commercial buildings with the content that the Plaintiff succeeds to the right to sell the instant store by combining D with D (hereinafter “instant acquisition agreement”). On January 28, 2016, the Plaintiff and D obtained confirmation of the acquisition by transfer from the Defendant.

On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 32,680,00 among the first intermediate payments to the Defendant, and the remaining intermediate payments of KRW 228,760,00 (=the remainder of KRW 32,680,000 in total of KRW 2 through KRW 65,360,000 in total of KRW 2 through KRW 65,360,000 in each of the first intermediate payments) paid to the Defendant on the date of payment for each intermediate payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The defendant is also a party to the contract of acquisition of this case since the defendant's consent is essential to resell the right of sale.

The instant store is one of three stores with a height of six meters among the 195 stores in the instant commercial building, and the height of the commercial building is important for determining whether to purchase the commercial building. Therefore, the Defendant, who is the party to the contract, was legally obligated to notify the Plaintiff of the height of the instant store in light of the good faith principle and the transaction concept.

Nevertheless, due to the Defendant’s deception that did not notify this, the Plaintiff believed that the instant store had a high floor of the general shopping mall, and entered into the instant acquisition agreement.

Accordingly, Article 110 of the Civil Code applies to the plaintiff.