1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants to purchase KRW 288,000,000 (hereinafter “instant each real estate”) and the housing on the land (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. On November 14, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 25,00,000 on the date of the contract, and KRW 263,00,000 on January 17, 2017, respectively. The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the instant real estate on January 20, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not notify the Plaintiff that the Defendants were involved in the suspected facilities, such as a printing plant, a steel product manufacturing plant, etc., in the vicinity of each of the instant real estate at the time of the instant contract, and concluded a contract by deceiving the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above contract

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to return the purchase price of KRW 288,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages of KRW 9,454,350, which is the total costs of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 30,00,000, which is a part of the above amount.

3. In cases where it is evident in light of the empirical rule that the other party to the transaction would not have been notified of certain circumstances in the transaction of the judgment real estate, it is obligated to notify the other party of such circumstances in advance in accordance with the principle of good faith. The subject of such duty of disclosure can be acknowledged not only by the direct law but also by the general principles of contract, customs, or cooking.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da48515 delivered on October 12, 2006, etc.). According to the results of the fact inquiry about the first instance court's orders, E and F are "less the printing factory and steel product manufacturing factory is less than the printing factory in G, etc. in the case of so-called strike neighboring each real estate of this case."