**** Dong********* in consultation* Dong******

Gangwon** by the group** by the group** by the group** by the group** by the mountain*

* Representative Director**

Attorney Kim*

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

The following facts may be admitted as Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2-4, Eul evidence 1-2-2, Eul evidence 1-2 and witness****'s testimony by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

(a) Co., Ltd.**** (* on March 29, 2004, the trade name of the defendant ******) is changed;

(1) The term "Defendant" (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant") means a golf course, a rest in Gangwon-do** Myeon* * Marisan**

In order to create a facility complex, it shall be comprised of owners of land, etc. of around 2001 *

*** District** Committee for the Attraction of Local Residents in the Development Project (hereinafter referred to as the "Attraction Committee").

Between Korea and Japan, ① The Inducement Committee shall have jurisdiction over the land under its management** the land under its management* development*

the purchase price of KRW 9,00,000 (land price of KRW 6,000 + 3,000,000 for graveyard burials) in a lump sum

The Do Governor cooperates in the business, instead of the defendant, by entering the golf course to be created, and the plaintiff

The incidental business of the Market, sing, electronic amusement room, etc. shall give priority to the owners of the mountain by means of a private contract.

(2) The building site shall be substituted by a mountain village so that it may be restored to a cemetery by creating a park cemetery.

(3) establish a scholarship fund for children of the State of

(4) establish a service company to employ daily employees necessary for operation, such as golf courses.

(5) A project by purchasing local products from the host committee; and

(6) If a full-time employee is employed, the lineal descendants of the State in the United States.

shall enter into an agreement to preferentially employ a person meeting the employment standards.

had been.

B. Pursuant to the above Convention, the plaintiff in the mountain owner is a golf course between September 10 and September 21, 2001, with the defendant around September 21, 2001.

Negotiated contract on the premises that the plaintiff wants to operate among the leased establishments, such as Smarkets, etc.

by way of entering into a lease contract, and corresponding agreement between the defendant and the Attraction Committee

On November 5, 2001, after an agreement was reached on the compensation for graveyard burials, the timing for relocation, etc., the Plaintiff’s separate ownership on November 5, 2001

the sum of the sales proceeds with respect to each real estate listed in the list (hereinafter referred to as “the forest of this case”)

35,820,000 won (al.e., approximately 5,970 square x 6,000) but the above lease contract and the relocation of a grave

contract to include the agreed matters in the contract as a special agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the contract").

The sales contract was concluded.

C. According to the instant sales contract, the Defendant paid the purchase price and the compensation for relocation of graves to the Plaintiff.

on December 24, 2001, the title of the forest of this case was based on the sales contract of this case.

The registration of ownership transfer is completed.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case. ① The defendant has the duty to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership as to the forest of this case, since the contract of this case was concluded with the defendant's belief, and the contract of this case was cancelled because the defendant did not perform the above contract of this case, ② the defendant did not perform the above contract of this case, such as preferential lease of supplementary work site, ② the defendant did not cancel the contract of this case, and the contract of this case was cancelled since the contract of this case was cancelled because the defendant did not perform the above contract of this case, ② the defendant did not perform its duty to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership as to the forest of this case. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership as to the forest of this case.

3. Determination

A. Claim for cancellation of a contract on the ground of fraud

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant sales contract was concluded by the Defendant’s fraudulent act, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

B. Claim for cancellation of a contract on the ground of default

On the other hand, the special terms and conditions of the sales contract of this case include the following: (a) the Plaintiff may lease the leased place of business that the Plaintiff wants among the leased places of business within the golf course; and (b) the Defendant may transfer the graveyard to the Plaintiff; and (c) as seen earlier, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant did not lease the leased place of a golf course to the Plaintiff.

However, in order to cancel a contract for reasons of non-performance of obligations under Article 544 of the Civil Act, it shall be the principal obligation to the extent that the obligee would not have concluded the contract unless the purpose of the contract is achieved. It shall not be cancelled unless the obligee has fulfilled any incidental obligation. Of contractual obligations, it shall be determined by the reasonable will of the parties, regardless of the independent value of the principal obligation and incidental obligation, and it shall be determined at the time of signing the contract, and such matters as the contents of the contract and the result of the non-performance of the contract shall be considered as not being fulfilled if the Defendant did not have any incidental obligation to the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da53705, 53712, Nov. 25, 2005). It shall be deemed that there is no need to conclude that the Defendant would have concluded the contract for the incidental business under the Civil Act to the extent that it would be difficult for the Plaintiff to have concluded the contract at the time of the entire park site and its destination.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot rescind the sales contract of this case for reasons of non-performance of the special agreement, separate from claiming damages against the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.