1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 8, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendants concluded a sales contract with regard to the purchase price of KRW 510 million (50 million in contract amount, KRW 50 million in balance, KRW 460,000 in 394 square meters in Pyeongtaek-si and KRW 4060 square meters in E (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

The terms and conditions of the above sales contract stipulate that “I will prepare a written consent for land use and cooperate with it so that I can obtain a farm farm permit,” and accordingly, the Defendants, on the date of the conclusion of the contract, have drawn up a written consent for land use with the purport that “I will accept land use only for the purpose of permission for land use in each of the instant lands only.”

C. The Plaintiff paid 30 million won, April 8, 2018, and 20 million won, respectively, to the Defendants as down payment. D.

The Plaintiff filed an application for permission for the construction of a sub-head in Pyeongtaek-si branch through the F architect office, but the said application was rejected on September 21, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant land for the purpose of newly constructing the Yang River, and the Defendants knew of this and prepared a written consent to land use.

However, it has become impossible to newly construct the Gyeyang, which is a motive mistake, and the sales contract of this case is revoked by the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to return 50 million won down payment that they received as restitution to each Plaintiff.

B. In order to cancel a mistake in the motive for determination on the ground that such mistake constitutes an error in an important part of a juristic act, the other party shall indicate that the mistake in the motive was caused by the other party or that the motive should be considered as the content of the declaration of intent in question, and such mistake shall be acknowledged as the subject matter of a juristic act.