2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

2. Addition of judgment

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion was concluded on the premise of the implementation of the Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Project for each of the instant lands. At the time of the conclusion of the donation contract, the parties could not expect all of the parties to the effect that the designation of the redevelopment project zone for the improvement of housing for each of the instant lands would be cancelled. In the event that the binding force of the donation contract is recognized, there were unreasonable results that the Plaintiffs lose their ownership to each of the instant lands. However, as the Defendants had cancelled the designation of the redevelopment project zone for each of the instant lands, the said donation contract has no need to maintain its validity and secure its ownership. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ rescission of the donation contract of this case on the grounds of such changes in

Furthermore, even though the land of this case has already been developed on the private land or it is possible to develop a self-residential development area, the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not conduct a prior investigation on it and did not designate it as a housing improvement redevelopment project area on December 1, 1973 and cancelled the designation of the redevelopment area on April 26, 1982 after concluding the donation contract of this case on March 30, 197, and then acquired the land of this case from the deceased unfairly. The donation contract of this case was concluded due to the mistake of motive induced by the defendants, and thus its cancellation is revoked.

B. To alleviate restrictions on activities such as new construction, reconstruction, extension, division, etc. for the improvement of housing within the redevelopment project zone, so as not to hinder the implementation of future projects.