1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The building of this case was jointly owned by the defendant and his wife E, which is his wife, on the ground of the 9th floor D 9th floor above Busan Seo-gu one parcel (hereinafter "the building of this case"). On February 8, 2007, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale as of February 2, 2007, among the plaintiff's husband of F, who was the president of the plaintiff, and the Dong business.

B. The Plaintiff again entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the purport that the transfer of ownership becomes an issue with a disposition without obtaining permission from the competent Mayor/Do Governor under the Medical Service Act, on April 16, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of sale as of April 11, 2008. In this process, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a sales contract with the purport that the said building shall pay interest of 10% per annum per annum at the time of unpaid payment (hereinafter “instant payment contract”). The Defendant shall pay the above sales price of 280 million won within six months from the date of transfer of ownership, and shall pay interest of 10% per annum to the Plaintiff by April 16, 2008 (hereinafter “instant payment rejection”).

[Ground of Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, witness G, part of testimony of F, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 280 million and delay damages after the due date pursuant to the sales contract of this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion on February 2, 2007 and the instant sales contract were made upon G’s request that had been in a business relationship with the Defendant and were made without intent to enter into a sales contract, and thus, they constitute false representation, and thus, are null and void, there is no Plaintiff’s claim for sales price.

3. Determination

(a) once the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall have the existence of a declaration of intent in accordance with the content of the document unless there is any reflective proof;