1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The Plaintiffs asserted that they purchased each of the instant land from the Defendant around 2016. At the time of the purchase of each of the instant land from the Defendant, the Defendant sought an explanation from the Defendant that each of the instant land was located after the application of the Korea Military Office and is being constructed as an apartment site, and thus, it is possible to construct a stable investment place, such as commercial buildings, etc., and indicated that each of the instant land was the Defendant and purchased each of

Since then, the Plaintiffs came to know that each of the instant lands was included in the cultural property designated zone, and there was a restriction on development activities, and that a grave exists in the instant land No. 1, and thus, cannot be engaged in development activities.

Ultimately, the sales contract for each of the lands of this case was concluded by the plaintiffs' mistake that it would be possible to construct, and if the plaintiffs knew that each of the lands of this case was included in the cultural property designation area and restricted development activities, the plaintiffs did not purchase each of the lands of this case, so the plaintiffs' mistake is an error in the important part.

Therefore, the plaintiffs cancel each of the instant sales contracts concluded by mistake as the lawsuit of this case. At the same time, the defendant is obligated to transfer ownership of each of the instant lands from the plaintiffs, and at the same time, refund the purchase price and damages for delay to the plaintiffs.

2. Determination

A. In order to revoke a juristic act on the ground that the mistake in the motive of the relevant legal doctrine constitutes an error in the important part of the contents of the juristic act, it is sufficient to acknowledge that the motive is the content of the declaration of intent and that it is the content of the juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intent, and it is sufficient to conclude that the parties agree to separately consider the motive as the content

Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12259 Delivered on May 12, 2000