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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as follows, and the Plaintiff’s assertion added in the appellate court is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as stipulated in the following paragraph 2, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and there is no error as alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds for appeal). The sixth-party 19 to seventh-party 7 of the first instance court shall be deleted.

The 8th to 5th of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed as follows.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the foregoing evidence, it is recognized that the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract by mistake as it is possible for the Plaintiff to secure wastewater without any particular difficulty, even though wastewater management is not secured for obtaining permission for the development of a factory construction on the land of this case.” The 8th part of the first instance judgment of “the circumstance where wastewater treatment can be secured from the land of this case” was “the circumstance where wastewater treatment can be secured without any difficulty in connection with the land of this case.”

Part 10 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deleted from Part 14 to Part 7 of the 111.

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion added at the appellate court is a condition subsequent, which loses its validity where the instant sales contract cannot be subject to permission for development of the instant land by December 15, 2017.

As the Plaintiff did not obtain permission to engage in development activities for the instant land until December 15, 2017, and thus the instant sales contract becomes null and void, the Defendants are obligated to refund the down payment of KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff and the delay damages therefrom.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants in this case.