The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

On the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is acceptable, and the court below recognized that the defendant had sent a written request for consultation on compensation for losses to the entire land including the remaining land without receiving a request for expropriation from the prop when acquiring the land in order to implement the industrial base development project of the private district of this case, and that it did not recognize that the prop requested to purchase the remaining land until the remaining land does not violate the rules of evidence.

The issue is without merit, which is the fact-finding court, and is groundless.

On the second ground for appeal

1. According to the facts established by the court below, in implementing the above development project, the project plan is subject to the project district, with the boundary of the development restriction zone and the land not belonging to the development restriction zone. However, the defendant Si decided to purchase the entire land including the remaining land, and the project operator is allowed to acquire the remaining land only if there is a request for expropriation by the prop, without notifying that part of the land incorporated into the development restriction zone is to purchase the whole land including the remaining land and the remaining land can be acquired from the prop, and without receiving a request for expropriation from the prop, the project operator was decided in advance by considering the compensation amount of the entire land including the remaining land, and then the request for consultation for consultation for compensation for losses was sent to the prop. In this process, the plaintiffs (the plaintiff 6, 7, and 8 were the deceased deceased's deceased's deceased's deceased's deceased's deceased's deceased's deceased land; the same shall apply hereinafter) did not inform the employees of the defendant city of the accurate incorporation status of the land incorporated into the whole land.

2. If the facts are true, the court below

A. The plaintiffs responded to the request by the defendant for purchase of the remaining land of this case on the premise that the whole land, including the remaining land, was mistakenly known or mistakenly responded to the fact that the whole land, including the remaining land, was incorporated into the business object of the defendant city, or that part of the land was incorporated into the business object of the defendant city, and that it constitutes a kind of mistake

B. The provision of motive was made by the relevant public officials under Defendantsan. Since the area of the land to be incorporated among the entire land of this case is considerably smaller than that of the remaining land, the entire land area is 1345 square meters, 1491 square meters1398 square meters, 998 square meters, 952 square meters, 3293 square meters, 2757 square meters, 2767 square meters, 3521 square meters, and 988 square meters, 130 square meters, 130 square meters, 828, 631 square meters, 795 square meters, 315 square meters, 2712 square meters, 2712 square meters, 2712 square meters, and 3461 square meters, among the entire land of this case ( according to the attached list of the judgment of the court below), the Plaintiffs did not comply with the request to purchase and sell the remaining land of this case on the ground that they did not comply with the request to purchase and sell the remaining land of this case.

C. In light of the circumstances leading up to the cancellation from the purchase by consultation in the instant case, it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs’ expression of intent to cancel after the lapse of the same period as the theory of lawsuit cannot be allowed against the principle of good faith or the principle of good faith.

D. As can be seen, the Plaintiffs’ response to the negotiation of the entire land including the remaining land even though only a minor part of the instant land is subject to expropriation is limited to the following circumstances: (a) inasmuch as there are circumstances as seen earlier, and if there is no such circumstance, it may be deemed that the contract would not have been made until the remaining land; and (b) it may be deemed that the mistake of motive is the content of the contract, and it may not be deemed that the mistake of motive is not an error in the important part of the expression of intent, or that is not indicated at the time of the Defendant. The precedents of the theory of lawsuit

3. Therefore, there is no reason to argue in the opposite position.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)