1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant for an officetel 827 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). As to the contract amount of KRW 209,90,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. After the Plaintiff fully paid the above contract amount to the Defendant, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 29, 2015 with respect to the instant real estate.

C. On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the instant real estate, at Osan Co., Ltd. with the term “10,000,000 won for lease deposit; (b) monthly rent of KRW 600,000 for rent; and (c) the term of lease from June 26, 2015 to June 26, 2016.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 6, Gap evidence No. 10, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s employees are able to rent KRW 1,00,000 per month, and the rate of 16.48% per annum is no at all, and there is no public performance rate. The Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant by notifying the Defendant of false facts, such as explaining that the instant real estate will be established at the time of completion by C after the completion.

However, the Plaintiff had no choice but to lease the instant real estate under the condition that the rent of KRW 600,000 per month was paid to the Plaintiff. Unlike the description of the Defendant’s employees, the public room rate reaches 15% in excess of the supply of neighboring officetels, and the establishment of C is in a situation where the establishment of C is inevitable.

As above, the defendant notified the important matters in the conclusion of the contract of this case as a way to the point of criticism in light of the duty of good faith, and the above contents were included in the contract of this case as an important part.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract by deception or mistake by false or exaggerated advertisement of Defendant employees. Thus, the instant sales contract is cancelled by the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case.