1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of this court like Paragraph 2 to the defendant's new argument, and thus, it is citing it as is by the main text of

2. Additional determination

A. Although the main purport of the Defendant’s assertion falls under the reduction of construction costs under Article 22 of the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts (hereinafter “ Traditional Markets Act”), the Plaintiff deceptioned the Defendant as if the instant construction does not fall under the reduction of construction costs, and the Defendant concluded the instant contract by mistake as to the important part of the instant contract, namely, whether the instant construction works are subject to reduction of construction costs.

Therefore, the instant contract is revoked, and the Plaintiff has a duty to return the profits equivalent to the construction cost that should have been reduced or exempted in absence of such deception or mistake to the Defendant.

B. Article 22 of the Traditional Markets Act provides, “When the head of a Si/Gun/Gu requests an electricity supplier under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Electric Utility Act to move a utility pole installed on the road or install it underground because it interferes with the promotion of a facility modernization project, he/she may have the person who implements the facility modernization project and the electricity supplier bear the expenses at the rate of 50/10, notwithstanding Article 72(1) of the same Act.”

However, in full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings, with regard to the Defendant’s request that the instant construction falls under the reduction and exemption of construction costs under Article 22 of the Traditional Markets Act, the Plaintiff is subject to the reduction and exemption of construction costs, based on Article 201-252 of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy’s notification of the Ministry of Knowledge Economy and the Plaintiff’s guidelines on the operation of the undergroundization project at the request of the local government.