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

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

Basic Facts

A. On August 25, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into each contract to purchase KRW 423,400,000 (i.e., 16,000,000 when full payment of the above F land, and KRW 69,60,000 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant contract”), each of which was purchased from Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) for the purchase of KRW 2,415 square meters in F forest land and KRW 397 square meters in Sinsi-si, Sinsi-si (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), and paid the purchase price to the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”).

At the time of the instant contract, the Defendant Company agreed to the Plaintiff that “The instant land will be developed as an area where business functions and central commercial functions can be performed in the future by the basic urban planning, and will be linked to the 20m road in the future.”

B. On October 26, 2006, Defendant B and C, an employee of the Defendant Company, prepared a written confirmation stating that “In selling the instant land by the Defendant Company, the seller, confirmed that the full amount of the purchase price would be refunded when the registration of ownership would not be delivered to the Plaintiff after the remainder payment.”

[Ground of recognition] Defendant D and Defendant Company: (a) the fact that there is no dispute over Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant C; (b) each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, and 8; and (c) Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (d) part of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 12; and (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, as the land of this case is planned to be a preservation site under the basic urban planning of the early city at the beginning of the beginning of the beginning of the beginning of the beginning of the year in which there is no specific value, such as there is no development plan for the central commercial area; (c) Defendant B and C provided false information

Ultimately, the Defendants deceptiond the Plaintiff and sold the instant land to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff revoked the instant contract on the ground of fraud and returned the sales price to the Defendants.