1. The plaintiff's main defendant and the conjunctive defendant are all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following judgments as to the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial of the first instance. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant sales contract was revoked on the ground of mistake, since the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract for the purpose of building a warehouse to load the building materials on the instant land, and the aforementioned motive was indicated to the Defendants.

On the other hand, a person who intends to cancel his/her declaration of intent on the grounds of mistake, including mistake in the so-called motive, shall prove that the mistake had a critical effect on the declaration of intent, along with the fact that there was an error in the contents of the juristic act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da74188 Decided January 17, 2008, etc.). As seen in the instant case, the Plaintiff appears to have purchased the instant real estate for the purpose of holding a warehouse to load the building materials on the instant real estate as alleged in that it appears that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate for the purpose of holding the warehouse to load the building materials on the instant real estate, and that it is difficult to achieve the purpose of the instant sales contract as the permission for development is unclear.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with the conjunctive Defendant, even if there was an error in the Plaintiff’s motive in entering into the instant sales contract, in light of the fact that, in response to such a case, the terms “the seller and the purchaser would not obtain the permission,” stipulated under a special agreement, the seller and the purchaser would

Even if such mistake is expected to be included in the above special agreement, the cancellation of the contract by the plaintiff on this ground cannot be allowed in violation of the above special agreement.

Therefore, it is true.