1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is the same as that of the part of the first instance judgment, except for the dismissal or addition of a part of the following, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or additional parts] The following shall be added between the 3rd and 11th of the first instance judgment:

In addition, since the access road to the factory of this case occupies state-owned land without permission, the plaintiff cannot obtain permission for the extension of the factory of this case, and such legal restrictions or obstacles fall under the defect of the object of sale and thus the plaintiff cancels the sales contract of this case pursuant to Articles 580 and 575 (1) of the Civil Code.

In the case of Section III, according to the result of the appraisal commission by the Korea Land Information Corporation (U.S.) of this Court, the factory buildings of this case are constructed only in the fireproof City C and D land, and the neighboring land is not invaded. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion that the building of this case was invaded by the adjacent land is not acceptable, since it is recognized that the building of this case was invaded by the adjacent land. The following is added between Sections 2 and 3 of the judgment of the first instance.

In the event that the subject matter of the judgment on the claim for cancellation based on the warranty liability lacks objective nature and performance that can be expected in light of the transaction norm, or the subject matter of the judgment is lacking, the seller bears the warranty liability for the buyer due to the defect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da18506, Jan. 18, 2000). However, in the sales contract for the factory site and factory building, the permission for extension or reconstruction of the factory building is not expected in light of transaction norms, rather than matters concerning the factory site and factory building itself.

(b).