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. The Defendants are co-owners of the area of 6,681 square meters in F orchard, G orchard 4,959 square meters (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) in the Yancheon-gun E-gun, Chungcheongbuk-gun, 8,922 square meters, and F orchard 6,681 square meters in any G orchard

(Defendant D 2/4, Defendant B, and C Shares 1/4). (b)

On August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendants for the purchase price of KRW 684,200,000 for each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and agreed to pay the down payment of KRW 60 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 622,200,000 on October 21, 2015, and paid the down payment to the Defendants on the date of the contract.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, and 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The instant sales contract was revoked or rescinded for the following reasons, and the Defendants are obligated to return the money claimed to the Plaintiff in return to their original state.

1 The Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with the aim of carrying out the mutual aid and mutual aid by newly constructing the two houses in each of the instant real estates.

However, on August 12, 2015, H, which concluded a sales contract with the Defendants on each of the instant real estate, filed an application for a building permit for new construction of livestock pens with the Korea Incheon-gun Office on August 25, 2015, but was rejected on August 25, 2015. Ultimately, on December 14, 2015, it was notified that it is impossible to newly construct a livestock shed on each of the instant real estate due to a shortage in allocation of pollutant discharge load and a shortage in excess of the raising area prescribed by the Act on the Management and Use of Livestock Excreta.

As such, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with an error that the two houses can be newly constructed on each real estate of this case.

The Plaintiff’s above mistake was induced by the Defendants, and the motive for the Plaintiff to conclude the instant sales contract was also known to the Defendants, and thus, the instant sales contract was concluded in accordance with Article 109 of the Civil Act.