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

A. On January 15, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant Company (Korean Auction sports Co., Ltd.) on the purchase price of KRW 29,90,000 (hereinafter “instant one real estate”) with respect to KRW 330,00 square meters (hereinafter “instant one real estate”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid all the purchase price to the Defendant Company.

B. On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant Company to purchase KRW 29.5 million for the purchase price and KRW 29.55 million for the remainder of KRW 29.55 million for each contract date, and KRW 29.55 million for the remainder of KRW 2,6.55 million for each contract date (hereinafter “instant two sales contract”) and paid the Defendant Company the down payment amount of KRW 2.95 million for each contract date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 5, 8, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the instant one sales contract as a result of the Defendant’s delay, and notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation by delivery of a copy of the complaint, as long as the Defendant Company did not deliver the documents for transfer of registration in accordance with the instant one sales contract. 2) In fact, each of the instant sales contract was concluded with the Defendant Company and Defendant B for the purpose of gaining profits from the market price by the horses of the Defendant Company that the development was scheduled within a few years in the future. As such, there is no development plan for each of the instant lands, there is no development plan for each of the instant lands. Therefore, even if there is a mistake in the important part of the juristic act or a mistake in motive, the Plaintiff’s motive mistake was caused by the Defendant Company and Defendant B’s active deception,

3. Each of the sales contracts of this case is revoked by deception due to false facts that the market price profit in several years or in several times of development by the defendant company is guaranteed.