1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On December 10, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted by the parties (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) concluded with the Defendants on December 10, 2015, a sales contract with the content that the Defendants purchase the purchase price of KRW 610,000,000 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) at KRW 610,000,000 on the same day, and paid KRW 60,000 to the Defendants as the down payment on the same day.

However, the Defendants concluded the sales contract of this case without notifying the Plaintiff of the fact that the said excavation was made in the land of this case and the building cannot be constructed. This constitutes the cancellation of the sales contract and the grounds for invalidation.

Therefore, since the sales contract of this case was revoked or invalidated, the Defendants are obligated to refund the down payment of KRW 60,000,000 to the Plaintiff and the delay damages therefor.

The defendants' assertion of this case does not do so on each land of this case, and there are dynamic minings.

Even if entrance is part of each of the land of this case, there is no obstacle to attaining the purpose of the sales contract of this case.

Therefore, the instant sales contract is valid.

Judgment

A. First, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants concluded the instant sales contract without providing the Plaintiff with information about the existence of grounds for invalidation in the instant sales contract, is difficult to view that there exists grounds for invalidation in the instant sales contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

B. Next, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract by deceiving the Defendants without providing the Plaintiff with information that the Defendants had been engaged in mining on each of the instant land.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion was made to the effect that the instant sales contract was revoked by entering into the instant sales contract in error.

The results of this court's inquiry about the proposal of this Court are examined.