beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company that produces and sells soundproofing plates, drums, fences, etc.
The Defendant is the owner of a building on the instant land, 452 square meters of land for B in Yongcheon-si, 1293 square meters of land for C, 635 square meters of land for C, 212 square meters of land for E, 70 square meters of forest land, 77 square meters of forest land, G forest land, 75 square meters of forest land, 3414 square meters of forest land (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and 3414 square meters of land for I forest land.
B. On November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant and the instant land and building in which the purchase price was KRW 50 million (in the real estate sales contract, the purchase price was KRW 450 million), and paid the Defendant the down payment amount of KRW 45 million on the same day.
J mediated the instant sales contract.
C. After concluding the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff was seeking to build or extend a factory on the instant land, but was not entitled to obtain permission due to the conservation management area.
Accordingly, on December 11, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that the instant sales contract was revoked, and was served to the Defendant around that time.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry and video (including the case of additional number) in the evidence No. 1 through No. 3, the purport of whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the main claim
A. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract was revoked or revoked for the following reasons, and sought the return of the down payment against the Defendant. ① The Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract with the belief that it is possible to newly construct or extend a factory on the instant land, and thus, there was an error in the important part of the content of the legal act. ② The Defendant and the saidJ deceptioned the Plaintiff that it is possible to newly construct or extend a factory on the instant land. ② The judgment 1)