1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

- On December 19, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased 4,645,614,020 square meters of the sales price among the Defendant and the Defendant’s land for C, 5,920 square meters of the factory site, D 49 square meters of the factory site, D 49 square meters of the land, and 2,465.9 square meters of the building A Dong, B, 80.56 square meters of the land (hereinafter “instant factory”).

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). - On December 19, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 100,000,000 as stipulated in the instant sales contract.

- On February 19, 2018 and March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the instant sales contract was revoked, as it is impossible to extend the factory on the grounds that part of the instant factory falls under an illegal building, the access road to the factory voluntarily uses state-owned land, and the instant factory site is designated as a restricted area for development permission. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sent a certificate to the Defendant around that time.

[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire argument as to the plaintiff's claim was concluded for the purpose of factory extension, and the plaintiff notified the defendant of such circumstance during the process of concluding the contract, and the defendant respondeded that there was no obstacle to the factory extension and business operation of the case.

However, since the conclusion of the instant sales contract, there are parts that correspond to illegal buildings, ② access roads are used without permission for state-owned land, ③ are influenced land of others, ④ are located within the restricted area for permission for development activities, ⑤ are influences that require replacement of fire doors and repair of facilities.

This constitutes an error in the important part of a sales contract, and thus the plaintiff is revoked the sales contract of this case on the ground of mistake.

In this case, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff that there is no impediment to the factory extension.