1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, as a state-owned land, is a person who has rented 2,192 square meters prior to C in innju-si (hereinafter “instant state-owned land”), and planted and used vegetable trees.

B. On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant to the effect that “if the Plaintiff pays KRW 2 million to the Defendant with compensation for two pine trees planted in the instant State-owned land, the Defendant renounces the right to lease the instant State-owned land” (hereinafter “instant contract”), and transferred KRW 2 million to the Defendant on May 22, 2014, which is the following day.

C. On May 23, 2014, the Defendant returned KRW 2,00,000,000, which was received in the value of twice trees, to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of No. 2 (including a serial number) and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that he plans to use the State-owned land of this case as educational facilities for D, but the defendant unilaterally reversed the contract of this case, thereby causing damage to the neighboring private land, and thus the defendant should compensate for the amount of KRW 10.4 million, which is the amount equivalent to the rent, and KRW 4 million, which is the amount equivalent to the value of twice trees paid under the contract of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the contract of this case was rescinded.

In other words, with the knowledge that the State-owned land of this case was publicly announced on May 23, 2014, the Defendant resisted the Plaintiff as to the failure to notify it, and asserted that the contract is null and void, and the Plaintiff consented to the cancellation of the contract while participating in the public auction procedure.

B. Before examining whether the instant contract was rescinded or terminated by the Defendant’s unilateral refusal, it first examines whether the requirements for the Plaintiff’s claim for damages have been satisfied.