The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On January 4, 2012, the Defendant purchased the Seo-gu land and its ground building (hereinafter “instant building”) used as a childcare center from D as a childcare center and operated “F Childcare Center”.

On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased the above land and the instant building from the Defendant for KRW 550 million, and acquired money for KRW 300 million with respect to the goodwill and all facilities and equipment within the F Child Care Center (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant contract”). The Plaintiff paid all the purchase money and the instant premium to the Defendant and operated a child care center on August 13, 2014 after completing the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the above land and the instant building.

In November 2018, the head of Seo-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City entered the Plaintiff the fact that the building was in violation of the building ledger on March 19, 2019, on the following grounds: “The head of the Seo-gu Office entered the Plaintiff’s prior notification of the administrative disposition of the building violating the Building Act, which is scheduled to issue an order for correction with respect to the violation of the Building Act due to unauthorized extension of the 53.68 square meters of the first floor and 24 square meters of the second floor.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (hereinafter referred to as "numbers") and Eul evidence or video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant, as the primary claimant, did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact at the time of entering into the instant contract, even though the Defendant, without permission, extended the 53.68 square meters of the first floor and the 34 square meters of the second floor of the instant building, used it as a corridor, stairs, and indoor play grounds, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s contract of this case is revoked by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

B. If a child removes an unauthorized extension, it is impossible to purchase the building of this case to achieve the purpose of the operation of the child care center, and it is not possible to convert the private child care center to national or public.