1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On October 2009, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant the two memberships of the C Housing Association in purchase amount of KRW 46,00,00,00 that can purchase an apartment that is expected to be newly built in Ansan-gu D, E, F, and G. The Plaintiff paid the above purchase amount to the Defendant around that time.

B. The Plaintiff believed the Defendant’s end that the apartment building will be completed, and purchased two of the above memberships, and the expected site for new construction of the above apartment is designated as a neighboring park site, making it impossible to newly construct the apartment. It is evident that the Plaintiff would not conclude the above sales contract if it had known it at the time of the above sales contract.

C. Therefore, the plaintiff is erroneous in the important part of the terms of the above sales contract, and the above sales contract is revoked by the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above purchase price of KRW 46,00,000 and delay damages for the restitution following the cancellation of the above sale contract.

2. In order to have an error in the expression of intent as stipulated in Article 109 of the Civil Act, the perception of the voter and the fact that there was no actual fact at the time of the juristic act should be considered to be a mistake in the expression of intent, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment. As such, as we think of the fact that there was no actual fact at the time of the juristic act, or that there was no fact that there was no actual fact, it is against the perception of the supervisor and the fact that there was a comparison with the fact that there was no omission of any matter in the future at the time of the act by the surveyor, and thus, it shall not be dealt with by mistake

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da202922 Decided November 28, 2013). With respect to the instant case, it is insufficient to recognize that the construction of an apartment is impossible solely on the basis that the foregoing site to be newly built was designated as a neighboring park site solely on the basis of the health class and evidence Nos. 5-1 through 4.