1. The defendant, from the plaintiff, on May 2, 2006, as to the land size of 1064 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun C Miscellaneous District Court of Jung-gu with respect to the plaintiff's 1064 square meters.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 6, 2006, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Defendant on March 6, 2006, as to the land indicated in the text of this case and the special agreement 1)

A) A sales contract was concluded to purchase KRW 105,00,000. The Plaintiff paid the purchase price to the Defendant from the date of the contract to April 30, 2006, and on May 2, 2006, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s future with respect to the instant land. (2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff and the Defendant stated in the sales contract of the instant land prepared by the Defendant that “A road permit to the instant land shall be received by the seller, but the construction cost shall be borne by the buyer.”

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant special agreement”). B.

With respect to the road status from the public road to the instant land and the public road, there is a passage in which ① 1577m2 in Gyeonggi-do, ② 1563m2 in E forest land, ③ 93m2 in F forest land, ④ 534m2 in G forest land, ⑤ 955m2 in H ditch, passes as a turn.

(c) each of the above lands is specified only as above number c).

On August 3, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail demanding that the instant land be performed within two weeks with the road permission. Around that time, the Plaintiff reached the Defendant.

【Unsatisfy-founded facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul’s evidence Nos. 2, Gap’s evidence Nos. 6, 7, Eul’s video (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff alleged by the parties 1 did not perform the obligation of the Defendant to obtain road permission in accordance with the instant sales contract, and thus rescind the instant sales contract by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case. As such, the Defendant’s restoration to the original state in accordance with the sales contract to the original state, upon receiving the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration from the Plaintiff, paid the purchase price to the Plaintiff.