1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 5, 199, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Hansan Co., Ltd. that purchased Nos. 240, 241, 242, 258, and 259 (hereinafter “instant store”) among the second underground floors of the building B located in Jung-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) from the above Hansan Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff purchased the instant commercial building at KRW 252,748,940.

B. Korean Commercialization Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korean Commercialization”) performed the construction work of the instant commercial building by being awarded a contract for the construction work from the above Chinese Commercialization, and completed the construction work on June 200 by taking over the right to the instant commercial building, which had been under construction due to the payment of the construction cost, from the above Korean Commercialization to the payment of the construction cost, and the ownership of the said site.

C. Accordingly, on September 21, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the modification of the sales contract with the above Han-Tech by acquiring the status of the seller as the seller of the above Han-Tech Industries, and entered into a contract for the modification of the sales contract with the above Han-Tech. On November 16, 200, the Plaintiff received the registration of ownership transfer for the instant store from Han-hwa on the basis of this.

On 201, as the owner of the store remaining 80% of the commercial building of this case, the company opened the commercial building of this case, and the defendant company succeeded to the rights and obligations relating to the commercial building of this case as divided from the commercial building of this case around 2002. On 2004, the company suspended the business of this case and closed the commercial building of this case on the grounds that the business of this case was poor.

E. On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff neglected the instant commercial building without opening the store, despite the duty to revitalize the commercial building following the sales contract, and requested the Defendant company to promote the revitalization of the commercial building as the implementation of the sales contract.

F. Accordingly, on December 2, 2014, Defendant Company confirmed that the Plaintiff and the general buyers of the instant commercial building, including the Plaintiff, and the lessee of the instant commercial building decided to close the instant commercial building by agreement in 2004.

G. On December 31, 2012, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.