1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 7, 2010, the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 15 million, a sofa, a sofa, a table table (including five table tablers), a befa, a co-trustee, a cremation unit, two joints, a funeral room, two funerals, a living room, a couple table, and a set lease (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant household”) in the “D” store operated by the Defendant and the Defendant’s husband C.

On January 8, 2010, the Plaintiff remitted 15 million won to the Defendant, and the Defendant delivered the instant household to the Plaintiff’s house on January 10, 2010.

B. After April 16, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) exchanged the instant household into another product or claimed defects; and (b) purchased one head visual clock from the Defendant.

From January 18, 2010 to April 16, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred 13,400,000 won in total to the difference in the prices of the product generated in exchanging the product with another product to the Defendant four times through an exchange with another product.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 9, 14 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the cause of the claim;

A. The Defendant, a primary claim, had the Plaintiff purchase the instant household by deceiving the Plaintiff, which is a product of Isasan, even though the instant household is a domestic product and defective product.

Even if so, this does not apply.

Even if the plaintiff did not purchase the household of this case, if it did not purchase the household of this case, and the defendant did not comply with the duty of disclosure despite the duty to inform the plaintiff of the origin of the household of this case, and did not attach the price list to the household of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the price of the household of this case 30,400,000 won and damages for delay as damages for tort.

B. The Defendant’s selective claim is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the product was not a protein.