1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

1. The Plaintiff shall invest in the Armed Forces as follows:

- Investment area: Masung-gun Electronic Integrated Agricultural and Industrial Complex (site 33,000 square meters): - Investment sale: Production of bathing items: 20 billion won (20 billion won from 2009 to 15.5 billion won from 2010, and 4.5 billion won in 201) - Number of employees: 120 persons - Investment Period: 209 to 2011

2. Jeonnam-do and Jeonsung-gun will make every effort to provide administrative and financial support for the plaintiff's successful investment, and the plaintiff actively introduce eco-friendly energy facilities at the time of factory establishment.

As a company established on June 13, 1997, the Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement with the Hosung-gun and Jeonnam-do on May 13, 2009, where the head office was located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu. 531.

B. On May 13, 2009, the Plaintiff concluded a contract to enter into an occupancy contract within three months from the date of full payment of the sale price with the Defendant and the Plaintiff agreed to enter into a contract to enter into a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase of 30,377 square meters in the dong Electronic Agricultural and Industrial Complex (hereinafter “instant agro-industrial complex”), which is located in the Namsung-gun, Jeonsung-gun, Seoul, with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agro-industrial complex”), by reducing the sale price of the instant land from KRW 2,461,448,310 on August 21, 2009, by reducing the sale price of the instant land from KRW 2,461,448,310 on August 21, 2009.

Meanwhile, as a result of the cadastral confirmation survey on the instant agro-industrial complex, the area of the instant land is determined as 30,955.9 square meters higher than the initial area, and around that time, the parcel number was set on the instant land. The Plaintiff and the Defendant modified the occupancy-sale contract with the purport of increasing the sale price of the instant land to 2,508,356,580 won on October 15, 2010.

C. The Plaintiff, on August 31, 2009, was in force to the Defendant on the basis of the State’s financial support standards for attracting local investment enterprises of local governments (hereinafter “financial fund support standards”).