1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

The court's explanation of this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court's explanation of this case shall be as follows:

A. “B.”

1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff entered into the contract of this case with the knowledge that the contract of this case was a contract that can acquire "ownership" of the commercial building of this case, but the contract of this case actually entered into the contract of this case. The contract of this case is an important content of the contract whether the contract of this case is a right of lease or not. The plaintiff's mistake is caused by the employee of the defendant company and it is caused by the plaintiff's gross negligence, and the contract of this case is revoked pursuant to Article 109 of the Civil Code because the contract of this case

B) In addition to deceiving the plaintiff as the contract for the sale in lots which can acquire ownership even though the contract for the sale in lots was a right of lease, the advertisement for the sale in lots did not indicate that the contract for the sale in lots was a right of lease. If the contract for the sale in lots was under the contract for the sale in this case, the plaintiff can only be refunded only part of the security deposit at the time of the expiration of the term of lease, and the burden of loan is borne by it. Thus, the contract for the sale in this case can be cancelled under Article 110 of the Civil Act. 2) The decision of this case is contrary to the awareness of the purchaser and the fact that there was no fact at the time of juristic act or there was no fact.