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

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

1. On June 2, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the agent of Defendant B to purchase KRW 830,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) for the purchase price of KRW 425,00,00,000 between the purchase price and KRW 830,000,000, which is owned by the Defendant B (hereinafter “instant land”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000 to Defendant B as the down payment.

The pipelines are laid underground on the lower part of the instant land (the south part). The registration of creation of superficies (the scope of superficies: 193 square meters on the side of South and North Korea among the instant land) is completed on the instant land, and the terms and conditions of the instant transaction agreement also contain such contents.

Defendant B prepared a provisional design plan to build a building on the instant land on October 2013, but the said provisional map included 38.57% of the building-to-land ratio of the instant land ( statutory 60% below) in the said provisional map.

As to whether the design drawing was granted or not, the defendant showed at the time of the contract.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserted that he received after June 7, 2017.

argument is asserted.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, and 4 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant sales contract was concluded by Defendant D, the seller of the B, Defendant C, and the seller, jointly, deceiving the Plaintiff to reach 60% even though the building-to-land ratio of the instant land reaches 38.57%, and deceiving the boundary of the land, thereby inducing the Plaintiff to enter into the instant sales contract. As such, the Defendants, the joint illegal parties, are liable to pay the amount of damages equivalent to the down payment that was paid.

B. The judgment of the court below is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants, at the time of the conclusion of the land purchase and sale contract of this case, deceiving the Plaintiff on the building-to-land ratio and boundary of the land of this case, were written as evidence Nos. 5 through 13 (including each number).