1. The defendant is the Suwon District Court with respect to shares of 1/2 of the area of 479 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun D, Gyeonggi-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiffs purchased KRW 80,000,000 from the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 479 square meters in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiffs agreed to pay KRW 20,000,000 on the date of the contract and the remainder of KRW 60,000 on November 10, 2015 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). After paying the said purchase price to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiffs’ name as to each of the instant land 1/2 shares on November 16, 2015 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) was completed under the Plaintiff A’s name on November 25, 2015, and the revised registration was made on the ground of error in filing an application under No. 54580.

B. On June 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail containing an expression of intent to cancel the instant sales contract on the grounds of mistake, and served to the Defendant on the 19th of the same month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 9, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant and the broker that they purchased the instant land to construct a house for electric source. The Defendant sold the instant land without notifying the Defendant of the fact that the instant land included a road of 88 square meters and a ditch of 92 square meters, among the instant land, was impossible to construct a house for electric source. This constitutes an error in the important part of a juristic act, and the said sales contract was revoked upon the arrival of the content certification as of June 15, 2017.

As such, the refund of KRW 40,000,000 shall be claimed for each purchase price already paid.

B. In full view of the entries in Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, 10 through 14, witness E's testimony, witness F's witness testimony, and the overall purport of the pleadings, the land in this case is located on a street width and a ditch connected to the road.