The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a corporation that carried out the sales business of Dtel with the size of 4 underground floors and 15 stories above the ground on the ground of Silung-si (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

B. On September 19, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to sell E-ho Lake (the exclusive use area of 30.40 square meters, the public use area of 15.82 square meters, the sale area of 46.22 square meters; hereinafter “instant store”) among the instant officetels, with the content that the Plaintiff would sell the sale price of KRW 489 million (excluding value-added tax).

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). C.

Upon completion of the instant officetel, the Plaintiff paid the sales price in full and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant store in the name of the Plaintiff from the Defendant on August 25, 2017.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff leased the instant store to F on July 7, 2017, with a deposit of KRW 50 million, KRW 2.5 million per month, and the period from August 28, 2017 to August 27, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 5, 6 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, advertising that the Defendant would construct the 6th floor of the instant store, and the Plaintiff believed this and concluded the instant sales contract.

However, the instant officetel was unable to construct a double floor from the beginning, and it was not permitted to construct a multi-story or approved to use a multi-story.

As above, the Defendant entered into the instant sales contract by deceiving the Plaintiff with respect to the construction of a double-story, and entered into the instant sales contract in violation of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (hereinafter “Indication and Advertising Act”).

The defendant shall compensate the plaintiff for damages pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act or Article 10 (1) of the Act on the Labeling and Advertising, which corresponds to the difference between the value of the store of this case and the case where the store of this case was constructed in a double floor.