1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) from the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) A, on May 10, 2016, the wife population C as the grounds of sale and purchase C.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract. On May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff is a company running a housing construction business, etc., and on May 10, 2016, the Plaintiff is 1,825 square meters prior to the wife population C (hereinafter “instant one land”).

A) The sales contract was concluded to purchase the purchase price of KRW 828 million, down payment of KRW 83 million, intermediate payment of KRW 300 million, and the balance of KRW 445 million with respect to the purchase price (hereinafter “instant one sales contract”).

(2) On May 12, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with Defendant B to purchase KRW 1,955 square meters prior to the wife population D (hereinafter “instant 2 land”) with respect to the purchase price of KRW 7.9 billion, the down payment of KRW 14.1.8 billion, the intermediate payment of KRW 283.6 million, and the remainder of KRW 283.6 million, with respect to the purchase price of KRW 195 square meters prior to the wife population D (hereinafter “instant 2 land”).

(2) On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit on the ground that each of the instant lands is scheduled to be incorporated into E site, with Defendant A, and that Defendant B paid KRW 425,40,000,000,000 for the total sum of the down payment, intermediate payment, and intermediate payment based on the instant two sales contract. (b) After the return of the building permit, the Plaintiff filed an application for a building permit on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff would be incorporated into E site; and (b) on October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff rejected the application for a building permit on the ground that there is no dispute on the ground that the instant land is scheduled to be incorporated into E site; and (c) Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply) of the instant two sales contract.

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The summary of the argument on the invalidation of a sales contract is that each of the instant lands, which is farmland under the Farmland Act, obtained permission to divert farmland pursuant to Articles 6(2)7 and 34(1) of the Farmland Act to acquire the land as farmland. Therefore, obtaining permission to divert farmland is a valid condition or condition of suspension of each of the instant sales contracts.