1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 7, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell the instant officetel 906 (hereinafter “instant officetel 906”) in units of KRW 126,609,260 (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Plaintiff around February 7, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 18,91,390 (including the intermediate payment of KRW 17,700,700,000 on December 31, 2011; KRW 500,000 on January 26, 2012; KRW 15,91,390 on February 15, 2012; KRW 15,850 on intermediate payment of KRW 25,321,850 on February 7, 2012; KRW 18,91,390 on intermediate payment of KRW 17,70,00 on the second, 3rd, 18,91,390 (the intermediate payment of KRW 17,70,000 on the second, 17,700,000 on the second, 390,000 on the second, 18,390 on the second, 201,050 on the part payment of intermediate payment).

Around August 5, 2013, the instant officetel was approved for use, and thereafter, the Defendant Company, on behalf of the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Plaintiff, subrogated to the Suhyup Bank for the principal and interest of the intermediate payment to the Plaintiff, who did not repay the principal and interest of the above intermediate payment to the Nonparty Suhyup Bank, which is the lending bank, for each intermediate payment loan obligations of the Plaintiff, on May 8, 2014 (i.e., the Plaintiff’s principal and interest amounting to KRW 47,860,795 (i.e., the intermediate loan amounting to KRW 47,200,000).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties did not agree with the intention on the object of sale, and the contract of this case is a malicious trust with the defendant's knowledge that the seller is C, and thus the contract of this case is null and void. The defendant's signature in the confirmation document of this case is an unfair legal act, and even if not, the contract of this case is revoked on the ground of mistake of the object of sale or fraudulent advertisement by the defendant.