1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On August 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around August 2014, Defendant B purchased the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 8/12; and (b) KRW 629 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, which Defendant C owned the share of KRW 4/12; and (c) purchased from the Defendants KRW 1.75 million ( KRW 1.75 million) at KRW 32.5 million per square.

However, the Defendants, among the instant land, included 10 square meters (30 square meters; hereinafter “instant incorporated land”), which is a part of the instant land, as a customary road, into the premises for the covering construction executed by Chungcheongbuk-gun, and did not notify the Plaintiff at the time of the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), even if the Defendants already prepared a written consent to the use of the relevant land around October 2013.

The instant sales contract is deemed to be a contract for the designation of quantity. Since the Plaintiff could not use 30 square meters among them due to the Defendants’ non-disclosure or deception, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the money stated in the purport of the claim corresponding to the above 30 square meters purchase price, as unjust enrichment or damages.

B. First of all, as to whether the Plaintiff was unable to be notified of the fact that the incorporated land in this case was incorporated into a building site as a customary road at the time of the instant sales contract, it is insufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s submission even if all the evidence were to be integrated. Rather, in full view of the following: Gap evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 1 (including a serial number), witness E, witness E’s testimony, and each fact inquiry into the head of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, the court’s head of Seo-gu, and Seo-gu, Cheong-gu, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff confirmed the Defendants’ status of the aforementioned land and the incorporated land before the sales contract in this case was concluded, and the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent on the part of the Plaintiff, were incorporated into the land for Re-construction.