1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On August 16, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase each land of KRW 2,086,80,000 [the contract amounting to KRW 200 million, any balance of KRW 1,886,800,00 ( February 20, 2018)] with the purchase price of KRW 14,479 square meters and each land of KRW 198 square meters for D forest (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

On the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million out of the down payment to the Defendant, and on August 25, 2017, paid the remaining down payment KRW 100 million.

Each of the instant lands is a planned control area provided for in Article 36(1)2 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.

On March 2, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the purport that the instant sales contract will be rescinded on the grounds that the remainder under the instant sales contract is unpaid.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including partial number Nos. 1 and 2; hereinafter the same) and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff requested purchase of each land of this case for the purpose of the new construction of a factory, and sufficiently indicated these circumstances to the defendant. Each land of this case was land for which the new construction of a factory could not be permitted.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s rescission or rescission of the instant sales contract on the following grounds. As such, the Defendant is obligated to refund the down payment KRW 200 million paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment or restitution to its original state.

The defendant was well aware of the fact that it is impossible to obtain a new factory construction on each land of this case, and did not notify the plaintiff of such fact. This constitutes a deception by the plaintiff's omission, and thus the sales contract of this case is revoked in accordance with Article 110 of the Civil Act.

Since the fact that each land of this case was purchased for the purpose of the new construction of the factory was indicated to the defendant, the sales contract of this case is revoked as the motive mistake.

The plaintiff.