1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 31, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendants (hereinafter “instant land”) concluded a sales contract by setting the sales price of KRW 410,00,000 for the amount of KRW 660 square meters for the land owned by the Defendants and the Defendants (hereinafter “instant land”). On the same day, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract by paying the remainder payment of KRW 40,000,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 100,000 on February 28, 2011, and KRW 270,000 for the remainder payment of KRW 30,000 on March 30, 2011.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land on March 30, 201.

C. The actual area of the instant land is not 660 square meters, but 628 square meters.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land at KRW 400,000,000 (=2,000,000 x 200,000) with the Defendants and the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,00 in return for succeeding to permission for conversion of mountainous district on the instant land, and purchased the instant land at KRW 410,000 by determining the purchase price as KRW 410,000 in return for succeeding to permission for conversion of mountainous district on the instant land.

However, the actual area of the land of this case is about 190 square meters, and permission for mountainous district conversion was not effective after the lapse of the exclusive use period.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the shortage of the quantity of the subject matter to be sold, as damages, KRW 19,880,000,000 for nonperformance of the agreement on permission for mountainous district conversion, respectively.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to refund to the Plaintiff each of KRW 14,940,000 and damages for delay.

B. Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 16, and 19 (including serial numbers) is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff and the defendants concluded the instant sales contract by designating the quantity as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a comprehensive consideration of the overall purport of the pleadings, such as ① the testimony of the witness E.