1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 13, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased the Defendant’s shares and the building on land (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from among the Daejeon Seo-gu E site that was owned by the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); (b) KRW 300,000,000,000 for the purchase price of KRW 300,000 (an amount of KRW 40,000,000 for the contract payment and the balance of KRW 260,000,000 for the contract payment) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (c) paid KRW 40,000,000 for the down payment to D.

B. On July 25, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to D a certificate of content that the instant sales contract was revoked on the ground of mistake, referring to the issue of interest coupons, etc.

C. As of July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff did not pay any balance by the payment date, and as of July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a written waiver of the following content (hereinafter “instant waiver of the content”) and paid it to D.

E C [Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-4, Eul evidence 1, witness D's partial testimony (except for the portion not trusted in the following), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant sales contract was purchased by the Plaintiff with the knowledge that the instant real estate was transferred to the instant real estate, and that the Plaintiff was informed of the fact that the instant sales contract was not transferred to the Plaintiff, and notified D of the Defendant’s agent that the instant sales contract was revoked.

After that, if the defendant's agent D cooperates with a third party to sell the real estate of this case, he prepared a written waiver of this case in the purport that he cooperates with the intention that he will return the down payment of KRW 40 million after selling it, so that there is no problem of double selling of real estate.

Therefore, the defendant should return the down payment to the plaintiff KRW 40 million.

B. First of all, it seems that D itself had the authority to act for the defendant at the time of the instant sales contract.

However, the witness D's testimony, which corresponds to the plaintiff's argument, is known to the attitude and contents of the testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings.