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.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except where the plaintiff added the following judgments as to the assertion that the appellate court repeats the appellate court, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

The plaintiff asserts that the contract of this case is a contract under the condition of rescission, which is fulfilled the conditions of rescission, or which is a contract concluded by mistake of the plaintiff.

However, in light of the circumstances indicated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, particularly in the sales contract that the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted again on January 2014, 2014, it is difficult to recognize that the instant sales contract was a conditional contract for cancellation, or that the Plaintiff’s motive for the conclusion of the Plaintiff’s contract was written to the Defendant and the instant sales contract was the content of the instant sales contract, even if it was examined in addition to the written evidence Nos. 21 and 22 additionally submitted by the appellate court, in light of the following: (a) there is no stipulation that the date of the intermediate payment payment is changed to “1.15, 2014; and (b) there is no stipulation that the Defendant should take measures to allow the lessee to withdraw and newly construct the instant intermediate payment by the date of the said intermediate payment payment; and (c) there is an additional stipulation that the remaining lessee

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Then, the plaintiff asserts that the estimated amount of damages under the sales contract of this case is unfairly excessive.

In other words, the Plaintiff’s conclusion of the instant sales contract is expected to be selected as the primary subcontractor by starting the construction of a factory as soon as before the date of the payment of the intermediate payment of the instant sales contract, and the instant sales contract was concluded. In fact, even if the Plaintiff’s plan was insufficient to commence construction by the said deadline, considering the circumstance that the Plaintiff’s plan was insufficient, the ratio of the estimated amount of damages to the instant sales contract, the background leading up to the rescission of the instant sales contract.