The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B and the defendant's conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is an implementer in charge of new construction, sale, and sale of D commercial buildings at the time of harmony, and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) entered into a management-type land trust contract with Defendant Co., Ltd., and entered into a sales contract with the buyers of the above commercial building as the seller and the project proprietor, and F Co., Ltd is the contractor of the above commercial building.

The Defendant Company entered into a contract with G (hereinafter “G”) on the sales agency of the above commercial building, and Defendant C was in the position of the head of the headquarters as it belongs to G and carried out the sales agency of the above commercial building.

B. On February 2, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant Company and E with respect to the instant commercial building H (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) with the sales price of KRW 971,807,00 (hereinafter “instant contract”) and paid KRW 97,180,700 on the day, and was refunded by Defendant Company the value-added tax amounting to KRW 4,710,700 on the part of the building.

C. Meanwhile, on February 13, 2018, Defendant C paid KRW 16 million to the Plaintiff out of the fees received from the Defendant Company.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5 and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although Defendant C, who was delegated the right to conclude a contract for sales in lots by the Defendant Company with respect to the primary claim, was unable to obtain gains from resale due to the housing unsold in lots, the contract of this case was concluded by deceiving the Plaintiff to return the down payment and pay the proceeds of resale 60 million won within several days after the contract was concluded by deceiving the Plaintiff, but the contract of this case did not be resold until the expiration of the outstanding payment period, as such, Defendant C’s contract of this case concluded by the said deception was revoked and the contract of this case was restored to its original state with respect to the Defendant Company.