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. The status of the parties is 1) Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”).

) The Sejong F Building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) shall be:

2) Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) is an agent trust which entered into a contract for sale management trust and agency contract with Defendant B.

3) Defendant D Co., Ltd. (former trade name: G Co., Ltd., and before and after the change, collectively referred to as “Defendant D”

Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”) is the contractor of the instant building.

A) On November 13, 2018, Defendant D is a company incorporated by division. 4) H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “sale agency”) is a sales agency which entered into a sales agency contract with Defendant B for the instant building, and I is an employee who is in charge of sales agency for the instant building from the sales agency to the end of December 2017.

B. 1) On January 22, 2017, the Plaintiff visited the model lower court of the instant building on January 22, 2017, to visit the instant building, and the first floor J of the instant building from I (hereinafter “instant J”).

(1) On January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff made an offer to the commercial building of this case on January 25, 2017, with the scheduled date of full payment of the down payment of KRW 2,00,000,000, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,000 to Defendant B. 2) On January 26, 2017, the Plaintiff made an explanation to the Plaintiff on January 26, 2017, stating that “In the event that the rent of the K convenience store in this case is destroyed and the occupancy is carried out by a public room until three months after the occupancy, the Plaintiff promised to pay KRW 60,44,00,000 to the loan of this case for KRW 3.5,50,000,000,000 on behalf of the Plaintiff for one year. This contract is an undertaking entered into between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and thus, the promise to resell is null and void if it would have exceeded the thickness of the right prior to the sale.”

hereinafter referred to as "the case."