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

A. On September 23, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on the purchase price of KRW 530 million for the purchase price of KRW 277,00,000,000 (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 53 million on the day of the instant contract pursuant to the instant sales contract.

C. The instant land is designated as an agriculture promotion zone under the Farmland Act as an agricultural and forest area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is null and void due to the following reasons. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the down payment, KRW 53 million, and delay damages, which the Plaintiff paid, as unjust enrichment thereafter.

① The Plaintiff cannot acquire ownership of the instant land under the Farmland Act, such as that it cannot obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland for the instant land as a stock company. Therefore, the instant sales contract is null and void as it aims at providing benefits, which is an original impossibility.

② At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant conditioned that the construction of a factory would be possible for the instant land, and thus, the instant sales contract was null and void as the condition was not fulfilled.

3. Determination

A. We examine whether the sales contract of this case is an original impossibility and becomes null and void, and the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland under Article 8 (1) of the Farmland Act is merely a document to be attached when a person who acquired farmland applies for registration of ownership, and it does not affect the legal act which causes the acquisition of farmland (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da49251, Feb. 27, 1998). At the time of the conclusion of the sales contract of this case, the plaintiff is based on Article 34 of the Farmland Act.