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. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 17, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant’s agent (the Defendant’s son) to purchase the purchase price of KRW 250 million (the contract amount of KRW 20 million and the remainder of KRW 230 million) with the purchase price of KRW 250 million (the contract amount of KRW 20 million and the remainder of KRW 200 million), and paid the down payment of KRW 20 million on the same day.

B. On May 24, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a letter verifying that “the Plaintiff is unable to implement the instant sales contract, on the ground that the Defendant’s agent obtained permission for restaurant business, and the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract to run restaurant business on the instant land. However, the Plaintiff’s inquiry to the department in charge of public viewing, and the instant land falls short of the condition that at least 10 houses need to be at least 10 units within the radius of 150 meters around the surrounding area, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot implement the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant content certification”).

C. The instant land constitutes a planned control area stipulated under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and the requirement was required that public sewerage systems are installed and operated under the Sewerage Act or that at least 10 natural villages are formed within 150 meters in the radius of the half, in order to install resting restaurants, etc. in a planned control area pursuant to Article 30 subparag. 23 [Attachment Table 25] of the Ordinance on Urban Planning of Gongju-si (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 2540, Jul. 1, 2014) around May 201.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 through 4, 6, fact-finding results on the public market in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted 1, on May 17, 2013, sought advice from H of “G real estate” located in the public city in the public city, to purchase land to engage in restaurant business in the vicinity of the Sejong Metropolitan City.

H contact with the J which operates the “I Real Estate”, and the J has a good land to be cafeteria, and the land in this case is the Plaintiff.