1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On September 22, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the content that the Plaintiff purchases the Plaintiff’s 1,030,000,000 won (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) of the Busan-gu Busan-gu C land and the commercial building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment amount of KRW 80,000,000 on the day, there is no dispute between the parties.

2. At the time of concluding the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff, a pharmacist, clearly known that the Plaintiff would purchase the instant real estate to use the Defendant as a pharmacy, and that the instant real estate was located within the redevelopment project zone, but if the Defendant actually conducted redevelopment, it would have been able to use the instant real estate as a pharmacy for a considerable period of time until that time, since there would have been several years, if the Defendant would have been able to use the instant real estate as a pharmacy. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was believed to have concluded a sales contract and

However, unlike the Defendant’s end, since the redevelopment partnership had already applied for authorization of the management and disposal plan and had to remove the instant real estate at the time of the contract, the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff rescinded the instant sales contract by mail certified as of September 26, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendant should return the down payment that was paid to the Plaintiff KRW 80,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and compensate for KRW 20,000,000 for the consolation money for deception.

(First) Even if the defendant's cause is not recognized, the amount of confiscated down payment should be reduced to an appropriate amount because it falls under the scheduled amount of damages, and the balance should be returned to the plaintiff.

(Second argument) 3. Judgment

A. As to the first argument, ① the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with the knowledge that the instant real estate is located within the redevelopment zone, and ② the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate to a third party as leased.