Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the Plaintiff’s share 99.1/3941 (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s share”). Defendant B, as the owner of the instant land, becomes aware of the Plaintiff’s share through the bareboat, as the seller of the instant land, and Defendant C introduced the instant land to the Plaintiff; Defendant D and Defendant E are employees of the real estate planning company G.

B. On January 11, 2017, the Plaintiff received the instant land from Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E to verify the site. After entering into a sales contract with Defendant B, KRW 55,500,000 for the Plaintiff’s share in the instant land, KRW 27,000 for the intermediate payment, KRW 27,000 for the intermediate payment, KRW 23,000 for the remainder until January 17, 2017, and KRW 23,000 for the remainder until January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2% ( KRW 1,110,000 for the remainder payment until January 17, 2017), and concluded a sales contract with Defendant B to discount KRW 37,00 for the Plaintiff’s share on January 17, 2017, KRW 37,000 for each of the instant land, 00,000 for the same year to Defendant D, 1017;

2. 6. The registration of the transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was completed.

(c)

On the other hand, the instant land is classified into green areas in urban areas under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and is designated as agricultural promotion areas under the farmland law.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is selectively selected, the Defendants did not perform the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant for the sake of development and the obligation to the progress of development. Therefore, the instant sales contract was rescinded by the delivery of the instant complaint.

Therefore, the Defendants should jointly return the purchase price of KRW 49,390,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff as restitution, and compensate for damages of KRW 5,500,000 due to nonperformance of obligations.

The defendants are the defendants.