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

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 14, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased from Defendant B the purchase price of KRW 107,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) for the second class neighborhood living facilities (office) of the second class neighborhood living facilities (office) of the Gandong-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu and the second class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant site and building”).

On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the balance of the purchase price and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land and building from Defendant B.

B. The Plaintiff introduced the instant site and building from Defendant C, a licensed real estate agent conducting real estate brokerage business under the trade name of “F Licensed Real Estate Agent” in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, and concluded the instant sales contract with Defendant C as the broker of Defendant C. However, as the husband of Defendant C, G, a brokerage assistant, assisted the brokerage business.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, Defendant C entered the specifications confirming the object of brokerage on the instant site and buildings into the relevant sales contract into and delivered to the Plaintiff by stating the specific use area as urban green belt district, the upper limit of building-to-land ratio to 40%, and the upper limit of floor area ratio to 100%. However, among the instant sites, the natural green belt settlement district was extremely limited to part of the instant site, and Defendant C was subject to an administrative disposition for the suspension of business for three months from the competent authority

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff found Defendant C’s F Licensed Real Estate Agent’s office and requested the F Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Office to mediate the land to be used as the site. On October 2014, the Plaintiff explained that the instant land site was 100% of the upper limit of the floor area ratio to the natural village district and 40% of the upper limit of the building-to-land ratio, and that there is no problem for the Plaintiff to newly construct the studio.

B. The Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract with the belief of Defendant C’s horse, and, in fact, the land corresponding to the natural village district among the instant site is the total area.