1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, as the owner of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City and D’s land and buildings on its ground (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”; and the building, as the owner of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”), operates a mutual public notice telecom with “E” from June 30, 201 to the second to seventh floors of the instant building.

The Defendant stated that the monthly rent of KRW 13,000,000 can be collected at the monthly rent in the advertisement to sell the instant real estate.

B. On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from the Defendant and the Plaintiff in KRW 2,400,000,000, and concluded a sales contract to pay the remainder of KRW 220,000 on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 2,180,000,000 on April 21, 2017 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 220,00,000 in accordance with the instant contract.

C. However, according to the general building ledger of the instant building, the main purpose of the instant building is “Class II neighborhood living facilities”; the use of the second and third floors; the use of the fourth and fifth floors; the use of the fourth and fifth floors, “private teaching institutes”; and the use of the sixth floors,” respectively.

In addition, on July 1, 2013, the defendant filed a return of tax conversion from a general taxable person to a simplified taxable person whose total amount of proceeds from supply in the immediately preceding year is not more than 48,00,000 won.

On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract with the Defendant after hearing the horses that it is a legitimate building that can be operated by the Institute of Public Notice. However, a bank loan examiner, after hearing the horses that the use and actual use of the instant building are different from that of the instant building, knew that the instant building was an illegal building. If the Plaintiff sufficiently told that it was an illegal building at the time of the instant contract, it would have not concluded the instant sales contract, and thus, the Plaintiff could not maintain the instant sales contract, and thus, cancelled the instant sales contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s content-certified mail stating that “the return of down payment is demanded.”