1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court, the defendant.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged pursuant to the purport of the whole pleadings and the statement of evidence Nos. 6 through 8, 10, 13, 18, 1924, 8, 10, 19, and 19 (including the branch numbers if they are not specially indicated; hereinafter the same shall apply), and there is no counter-proof.

On January 2016, the Plaintiff, who was engaged in real estate consulting business, was requested by F, the Defendant’s selling agent, to build a sanatorium for older persons, such as ten parcels of land (hereinafter collectively collectively referred to as “instant land”) indicated in the attached list owned by the Defendant, etc., the purpose of which is changed to the site or miscellaneous land, and to increase the value thereof.

At the time, the land in this case was designated as an agricultural and forest area (Preservation Mountainous Districts) under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and the defendant was permitted to modify development activities for the purpose of creating the site for a sanatorium for older persons (land form and quality change).

B. Accordingly, on February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a provisional contract between F and F on behalf of the Defendant to purchase the instant land in KRW 4.3 billion, and the Defendant paid KRW 20 million as a provisional contract amount (Evidence A8), instead of receiving KRW 300 million ( KRW 100 million as at the time of the sales contract for the instant land; KRW 200 million as at the time of the payment of the balance of the purchase price) from the Defendant, instead of providing the Defendant with advice on the assessment and purchase decision of the instant land, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate consulting contract (Evidence A7; hereinafter “the instant consulting contract”) with a view to providing the Defendant with the explanation on the feasibility of the appraisal and purchase decision of the instant land, the invitation of occupants, and surrounding circumstances, and the anticipated forecast of revenues and expenditures, etc.

C. Next, on February 26, 2016, the Plaintiff, as the Defendant, purchased the instant land from the Defendant for KRW 4.3 billion (Evidence A10; hereinafter “instant sales contract”).