1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

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

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. The reasoning for the judgment of this court in this part is that the reasoning for the judgment of this court is as stated in the "1. Basic Facts" (2.19 ~3 14 e.g., the second e., the 19 e., the third e., the e., the e., the e., the e.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, F, the Plaintiff’s representative, clearly indicated the purpose of purchasing the instant land for the construction and sale of electric power resource housing, to H, an agent of the Defendants, and explained HdoF that the instant land is a land that can obtain a building permit necessary for the new construction and sale of electric power resource housing.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff believed the above horses of H and concluded the instant sales contract with the Defendants.

However, since there was no "road that is at least four meters wide," which is adjacent to the land in this case, there was no "road that is at least four meters wide," it was impossible to obtain a building permit for a new house construction and sale business.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff revoked the instant sales contract on the ground that the Plaintiff was by fraud by proving the content of the instant sales contract on February 22, 2017, or on the ground that there was an error in the part of the principal part of the instant sales contract by serving a preparatory document as of April 26, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay KRW 70,000,000,000, in total, paid the down payment and intermediate payment, which were already paid to the Plaintiff, divided by each share ratio (1/4) to the instant land by 70,000,000, and damages for delay.

B. The following facts can be acknowledged according to the reasoning of the first instance court’s fact-finding results on Gap’s assertion of revocation of fraud and the voice and voice of evidence Nos. 5, 6, 14, 15, and 16, and the appellate court’s fact-finding results, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

According to these facts, the Plaintiff appears to have purchased the instant land for the new housing construction and sale business, and on behalf of the Defendants.