1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. On May 30, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Appointor purchased KRW 2.5 square meters for each purchase price and KRW 1.5 million for each purchase price, from the Defendant, who was the Director-General of the Emera Development Organization of the Emera Development Organization, for the purpose of preferential purchase of 2.5 square meters or more of commercial land in the Dmera Complex. The Plaintiff purchased KRW 20 million for each purchase price and KRW 1.5 million for each purchase price under the name of Emera.

B. According to the urge letter sent by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City H (hereinafter “H”) to the applicant for livestock industry loss compensation, H decided to supply a person who had engaged in livestock industry with livestock such as Saturdays, salt, and balwing, etc. within the I district lawfully from February 26, 2007 on the date of the public notice of the relocation measures of the I district, and voluntarily transferred the livestock industry, as a means of a living measure, to those who had been engaged in livestock industry in the I district and voluntarily transferred the livestock industry.

C. The Plaintiff and the Selection filed an application for compensation for livelihood measures with H, but on January 4, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Selection were notified from H of the subscription share certificates and the lack of commercial land suppliers due to the failure to submit objective evidentiary data.

H entered into a contract for the transfer and removal of obstacles, etc. with the Plaintiff on June 8, 2009 by receiving KRW 813,333 as compensation for losses.

F. The Plaintiff and the designated parties accused the Defendant for fraud by deceiving the Plaintiff and the designated parties to deliver the total of KRW 43,000,000,000,000,000 for sales and introduction, but the Defendant was accused of fraud by the J prosecutor of the Seoul Dong District Prosecutors' Office. However, the lower court received a decision that the Defendant

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff and the selected person around May 28, 2008, purchased double bridges (bols) from the defendant on May 28, 2008 by the defendant in Songpa-gu Seoul D Complex, the plaintiff and the selected person will preferentially purchase 2.5 square meters of equity in the same area or have the corresponding amount in money.