The defendant shall receive on February 27, 2020 from the plaintiff the registration office of the Incheon District Court with respect to the real estate stated in the attached Form.

Basic Facts

A. On January 24, 2020, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase D Housing E (hereinafter “instant housing”) located in Michuhol-gu Incheon, Michuhol-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant housing”) with KRW 84.5 million.

The terms and conditions of the instant housing sales contract are as follows: “When there is an illegal building in the building ledger at the time of the contract, the illegal indication shall be rescinded at the time of the balance under the seller’

“ include the content of “”.

B. On May 9, 2005, on the instant housing building ledger, a building marking violating the Building Act was written on the ground of large-scale repair (voluntary demolition of party walls between households) without permission. However, on January 23, 2020, “the removal of building marking due to the completion of correction of the Building Act” was written on January 23, 202.

(c)

On February 27, 2020, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the transfer of ownership on the instant housing on January 24, 2020, and completed the registration of the creation of the right to collateral security (86,400,000 won) in the F Bank in the future.

(d)

On April 16, 2020, the head of the Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the head of the Gu issued a prior notification of the order to correct the existing violation to the Plaintiff. On May 13, 2020, the head of the Gu issued a corrective order to correct the violation of the Building Act until June 12, 2020.

In addition, on May 13, 2020, the head of the Gu of Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City stated in the housing building ledger of this case that "the cancellation of matters notified of the completion of the Si's schedule", and notified the disposition of imposing compulsory payment on August 4, 2020.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The primary assertion was made by the Defendant, even though the violation of the Building Act was not resolved, deceiving the Plaintiff as if it were resolved.

If the plaintiff knew that the problem of violation of the Building Act was not solved, the plaintiff did not sell the house of this case.