1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 4, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the unregistered land 257.6 square meters in Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant land”) and the buildings for reinforced concrete building 1 and 2 adjacent neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) on the ground (hereinafter “instant contract”) for KRW 3.3 billion, and stipulated a special agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that “the instant contract shall become null and void without penalty and the down payment shall be returned without mutual agreement when the loan due to the land unregistered in the current status of the land is impossible or the existing succession to the land is impossible (hereinafter “instant special agreement”).

B. On May 4, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 330 million to the Defendant the down payment of the instant contract (hereinafter “instant down payment”).

C. On April 5, 2017, the Defendant offered the instant land as security and received a loan of KRW 790 million from D Association, and KRW 210 million (hereinafter “instant loan”). On January 11, 2018, the Defendant offered the instant building as security and received a loan of KRW 200 million (hereinafter “instant loan”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The loan stipulated in the instant special agreement refers to a fixed loan (a loan that establishes a collateral on the register). As to the instant land, only a secured loan can be secured with respect to the instant land, and it is impossible to secure a fixed loan, the requirements for rescission of the instant special agreement were fulfilled.

Therefore, since the contract of this case is null and void, the defendant is obligated to return the down payment to the plaintiff.

B. Even if the rescission condition of the instant special agreement was not fulfilled, the Plaintiff erred by misapprehending that the “loan due to the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay” stipulated in the instant special agreement refers to a fixed secured loan, and indicated such motive (the motive that the Plaintiff intended to enter into the instant contract only when a fixed secured loan is available) to the Defendant.