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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. Defendant Company is a company conducting real estate sales business, etc., and Defendant C is an operator of Defendant Company, and Defendant D served as a director at Defendant Company and Defendant E as a director at Defendant Company.

B. On March 2016, the Plaintiff’s wife F entered the Defendant Company as a business employee.

C. On March 2, 2016, the macro-si: (a) made a public inspection and announcement of a proposal for modification of the urban management plan (public announcement No. 2016-280) regarding “an urban management plan (financial expenses) for the purpose of discharged residents at the time of macro-si; and (b) did not reflect matters concerning the modification of the urban management plan of G forest land 443 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) at the time of the public announcement.

(B) On June 15, 2016, the public announcement on the website alone does not make it impossible to verify the specific details of changes, and it was possible to verify the specific changes to be made by visiting a show of cities. Meanwhile, on June 15, 2016, the public announcement on the draft of the large city urban management plan (financial expenditure), modified decision, and strategic environmental impact assessment (public announcement H) was made on the draft of the large city urban management plan (area of specific use area, district unit planning zone, and urban planning facility). The change included the abolition of the urban planning road that

Since March 2, 2016 and June 15, 2016, the Si finally modified the urban planning of the instant land through the “Determination of the Urban Management Plan (Long-term Construction Plan: Roads, Parks, Greenbelts, Schools) and the Notification of Topographical Map (Public Notice I)” (Public Notice I) on December 8, 2016.

F on March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased 165 square meters of the instant land from the Defendant Company as the sales price of KRW 74 million.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). E.

The F paid 5 million won down payment to the Defendant Company on March 16, 2016.

On March 22, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the intermediate payment and the remainder 69 million won to the Defendant Company, and on March 22, 2016, received 1,480,000 won from the Defendant Company as discount money.

F. On the other hand, this does not apply.