1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are dismissed, respectively.

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

1. On December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 70 million with respect to the Ansan-si Draw Studio (hereinafter “instant Public Notice Center”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On December 1, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 40 million in total, including KRW 20 million on the same day and KRW 20 million on December 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant and the licensed real estate agent stated that the number of the public notice board of this case is about 40 and concluded the sales contract of this case with trust and trust of the plaintiff, and the actual number of the public notice board of this case is about 30.

Therefore, the Plaintiff expressed that the instant sales contract was terminated on the ground of the Defendant’s deception, but the Plaintiff appears to have asserted the revocation of the intent by fraud based on Article 110 of the Civil Act in light of the purport of the assertion. In addition, the Plaintiff seeks to return KRW 40 million of the sales price already paid.

Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff terminated the instant sales contract on the grounds that the Defendant’s act in bad faith and the real estate’s actual condition are different, and sought the refund of KRW 33 million remaining after deducting KRW 10 million, applying the rate of ordinary down payment to the sales price of this case, from the sales price of KRW 40 million already paid.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged in the statement Nos. 1 and 3 of the judgment, added to the purport of the entire pleadings, that is, the number of the instant public notice board is not indicated in the instant sales contract, and the number of newspaper advertisements (Evidence A No. 3) submitted by the Plaintiff is 40. However, the said advertisement is published in the newspaper to sell the instant public notice board to another person, and the Defendant deceiving the Plaintiff that the number of the instant public notice board was 40.