1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 12, 2014, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

(B) Of each of the instant real property, the unauthorized Building (hereinafter “instant Unauthorized Building”) constructed over the ground level of seven parcels in total of the land C, D, and E adjacent thereto in the net City C, D, and E, the land Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6.

2) The sales contract to purchase KRW 190 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) to purchase KRW 190 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

A) On the same day, the Defendant paid the down payment of KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and the remainder of KRW 160 million was paid up to April 11, 2014. Of the instant sales contract, the content of the penalty clause is as follows. 6. When the seller is in breach of contract, the purchaser shall compensate the purchaser for the amount of the down payment by penalty; when the buyer is in breach of contract, the contract deposit shall be deemed as a penalty; and the right to claim the return shall be deemed lost and the right to claim the return thereof shall be extinguished; 2. 2) Of each of the instant real estate, the land Nos. 2, 3, and 6 was partially constructed on the land, and concrete packaging is made on the land No. 1, 2, 3, and 6 (hereinafter “each of the instant farmland”). In order for the Plaintiff to obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland as farmland under the Farmland Act, all of the said land must be restored by the said building and concrete package.

3) In order to obtain a qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland necessary for the acquisition of each of the instant farmland, the Plaintiff restored each of the said land to the Defendant as farmland, but changed the reconstruction of buildings and concrete packaging after performing the contract, and the Defendant refused to restore the land, but the reconstruction of buildings and concrete packaging cannot be harmful. Accordingly, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her intention to cancel the instant sales contract on April 14, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “re-cancellation”).