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 25, 2006, the 2003 square meters in Seocheon-si, C was divided into 924 square meters in Seocheon-si, C (hereinafter “C land after division”) and 1079 square meters in D (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. After the division, the land category C was changed to the land for a factory on May 3, 2006, and it was combined with 398 square meters for a factory in Ycheon-si on the same day, and 1,322 square meters for a factory in Ycheon-si (hereinafter “C land after division and merger”).

C. From July 31, 2009, the transmission line owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant transmission line”) passed on the ground of the instant land since around July 31, 2009.

On July 31, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants on July 31, 2009 to set the sectional superficies for the instant transmission line with respect to a part of the land owned by the Defendants for the purpose of resolving the issue of passing through a part of the land owned by the Defendants.

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendants erred by misapprehending that the transmission line of this case passes through C’s land after division and merger while entering into the superficies contract of this case, and recorded “the indication of real estate” column of the superficies contract of this case in the column of “the indication of real estate” after division and merger, the Plaintiff and the Defendants indicated “the head of Chocheon-si C” 1,322 square meters.

On February 27, 2012, the Defendant sold the instant land, divided, and merged to F, the land C, etc. after annexation.

(hereinafter “this case sales contract”). The special agreement of the instant sales contract states that “the former will succeed to the contract.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff, one of the grounds for the determination of the claim for return of unjust enrichment following the cancellation of a contract, erred by misapprehending that the transmission line of this case passes the land C after division and merger.