1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or recognized by Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 1 and 3, testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings by the witness C at the trial.

A. On January 20, 2006, the Plaintiff, along with C and D, purchased 135,847 square meters of F forest land in Northern-gu, Northern-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from E in KRW 2 billion.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On March 3, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the said sale with respect to the share of 62152/135847 out of the instant real estate.

B. On January 18, 2006, the transfer of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff was issued a certificate of land use plan by the Defendant.

At the time of issuance of the above certificate, the real estate in this case actually fell under the agricultural and forest area, conservation forest, etc.

However, according to the drawings managed by the Defendant in order to issue a certificate of land use planning, the instant real estate overlaps with H land, which is the original district for a sports and recreational development promotion district in the vicinity, and the new drawing was published on December 4, 2003, and the posting of each of the above land boundary was changed to a single boundary line.

Nevertheless, there were erroneous indications that the instant real estate constitutes “tourism and resort development promotion district” and “Class II district unit planning district” in the letter of land use planning issued by the public official in charge of the Defendant’s public official on the wind to issue a certificate of land use planning to the Plaintiff in accordance

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, although the instant real estate was erroneously indicated in the land use planning confirmation issued by the Defendant as tourism and resort development promotion district, and Class II district unit planning zone, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate at a high price, as it deemed that it has a reasonable investment value, and thus, the Defendant is a tourism and resort development promotion district for tort damages