1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 29, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to pay the premium for the third floor DPC of the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government CPC (hereinafter “instant PC”) and take over all rights and facilities thereof (hereinafter “instant contract”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 77,000,000 to the Defendant under the name of the said premium, etc.

B. On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff determined that the sales data had been falsely increased while operating the instant PC upon delivery. On August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the instant contract will be terminated, and the said certificate of content reached the Defendant on August 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 5 evidence (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On July 2013, the Defendant advertised that the average sale of the instant PC was KRW 18 million on the Internet, and notified the Plaintiff at the time of the instant contract.

However, in fact, from January 2013 to June 2013, the average sales of the instant PC was not attained, but rather was in the state of enemy, and the Defendant was falsely engaged in the sales by increasing sales data under the name of the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife.

On August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded the instant contract by deception, including the Defendant’s false advertising and false sales data, and revoked the instant contract by giving the Defendant a certificate of content.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to recover the amount of KRW 77,00,000 including premium, etc. and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. Although the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 8 alone does not reach the actual average sales of the instant PC from January 201 to June 2013, 2013, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant entered and operated false sales data in the name of the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.