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

A. On April 22, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant setting the price of KRW 29,602 square meters for the land owned by the Defendant as KRW 130 million (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff paid 10 million won as the down payment to the Defendant on the day of the contract, and thereafter paid 60 million won as the intermediate payment, and paid the remainder of the purchase price on May 26, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 6 (including each number if there is a tentative number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, the assertion and judgment pastor, concluded the instant sales contract for the purpose of building the Plaintiff’s land without knowing that it is not possible to obtain a construction permit. This constitutes “when there is an error in the important part of the content of the legal act” under Article 109(1) of the Civil Act, and thus, the said sales contract is revoked. As such, the Plaintiff asserted against the Defendant that the said contract should be revoked. The Plaintiff seek against the Defendant for the payment of damages for delay from May 27, 2016, the following day after the refund of the purchase price

The plaintiff's assertion falls under the mistake of the motive, and if there is an error in the motive of the declaration of intent, the motive may be cancelled only when the party has made the motive as the content of the declaration of intent.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da55487 delivered on March 26, 1996, etc.). The following circumstances, which are acknowledged as being added to the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 3 and 8, i.e., the instant sales contract did not contain any content on the construction of a Dogwon. Of the dialogue between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which was one year and three months after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant, among the dialogues between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, was in a fluorous manner frily fly friened to the Plaintiff, is deemed to have been used for any other purpose, i.e., the Dogwon.