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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following addition. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2.In Part 5, the following shall be added to the fifth part below:

The Plaintiff did not conclude the instant sales contract if he had known that it was impossible to construct a building in the instant real estate. The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant on the premise that there was no problem in the progress of the development project in the instant real estate, and on such premise, there was an error in the important part of the legal act, and the Plaintiff cancelled the instant sales contract on or around April 2012, and thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should return the down payment to the Plaintiff. As acknowledged above, the Plaintiff received permission for development activities with respect to 400 square meters out of the instant real estate, as well as the fact that the Plaintiff received permission for development activities with respect to 876 square meters out of the instant real estate under the title of F for the purpose of building a detached house and a road site, according to the statement of evidence No. 11, it cannot be deemed impossible or impossible to permit development activities according to the above acknowledged facts, and there was no further ground for the Plaintiff’s assertion that it would be possible for the Plaintiff to conclude the instant sales contract under the premise that construction permission and construction permission will be executed.

In addition, it is impossible to construct a building in the real estate of this case as seen earlier.

(b).