1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B’s urban environment rearrangement project association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) is the executor of the main complex building C in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”), and Defendant Ringle Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is the executor of the instant building.

On November 17, 2014, with respect to the Defendants and the first floor non-105 of the instant building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract stating that KRW 1,656,50,000 for the sales price and KRW 165,650,00 for the first installment payment and KRW 165,650,00 for the first installment payment and KRW 165,650 for the second installment payment on April 22, 2015 on the date of the contract, and KRW 165,650 for the second installment payment and KRW 165,65,650,00 for the third part payment on October 222, 2015, and KRW 165,650 for the third part payment,00 for the remainder on April 222, 2016, and on the date of designation of occupancy.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

The Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 165,650,00 to the Defendant Union, and the intermediate payment of KRW 496,950,000 from the Han Bank Co., Ltd. received an intermediate payment loan, and the Plaintiff was unable to repay by the maturity date of the loan, and the Defendant Union subrogated for the Plaintiff’s obligation of the said loan.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The fact that there are columns inside the instant commercial building is very important, and since the Defendants did not fulfill their duty to explain at all, the instant sales contract is null and void in light of the purport of Article 3(3) and (4) of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act.

B. The Defendants did not inform the Plaintiff of the aforementioned fact, even though the columns were three in the instant commercial building, and part of the entrance wall was the substitute seat, and the instant commercial building was difficult to be used as a commercial building.

Therefore, the sales contract of this case is revoked on the grounds of the defendants' fraud.

C. The Plaintiff’s presence or part of the wall at the entrance of the pole is a substitute.