1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "2. D. Whether the sale and purchase contract for real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case has been rescinded due to the impossibility of performance" of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the part of the defendant B of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case to be used again as follows 2, it is identical to the part of the defendant B of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. A new or additional part of the judgment of the first instance; and

D. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the sale and purchase contract for real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case was cancelled due to impossibility of performing the sale and purchase contract for real estate due to impossibility of land partition or expropriation. 2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by adding up the entire purport of pleadings to the items in Gap Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and Eul Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including each number), it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff agreed to purchase each of the real estate of this case from the Defendant and obtain the land transaction permission and obtain the land transaction permission. It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff agreed to divide the land with the land development permission. The disadvantage arising from delay of development permission is deemed to have been agreed upon by the Plaintiff and the Defendant to accept the land. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the subdivision is impossible due to impossibility of performing the obligation of the Defendant due to impossibility of performing the sale and purchase contract for each of the real estate of this case.