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

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

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a company aimed at selling real estate by proxy, real estate execution, and development. Defendant C is the representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd.; Defendant F is the regular director of the Defendant Co., Ltd.; Defendant E is the managing staff of the Defendant Co., Ltd.; and Defendant E

B. On December 30, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased 40 square meters from the Defendant Company as KRW 18,816,000 (a price shall be determined as KRW 482,00,00,000 for KRW 18,816,00 (a price shall be determined as KRW 480,000 per square meter, and a price shall be discounted by 2%) of the sale price. On January 12, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name as to the share of 132/661,00 of H forest land subdivided from the above land on January 12, 201.

(2) On March 30, 201, the Plaintiff purchased 60 square meters from the Defendant Company to KRW 28,800,000 (hereinafter “I forest”) of the purchase price, and paid KRW 1,50,000 as down payment.

C. After that, on June 2, 2011, the Plaintiff accused the Defendants regarding the development plan and value of H forest and I forest (hereinafter “each forest of this case”) and requesting the return of the purchase price, and filed a criminal complaint against the Defendants. On July 5, 2011, the Defendant Company returned KRW 1,500,000,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff as the down payment for I forest.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 3, 5, 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase of each forest of this case against the Defendants, the forest of this case was determined as an administrative work in the vicinity of the Pyeongtaek Station, or was determined as being entered by the applicant, and there was no fact that each of the forest of this case was determined as a planned market price.

Nevertheless, Defendant D, by explaining the above development content as factually true, deceiving the Plaintiff, and Defendant E introduced each forest of this case to the Plaintiff, and it seems that the content of the development was true.