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. Basic facts

A. On October 31, 2008, the Defendant entered into a contract to sell 2,380 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Sungsung-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Yong New Zealand”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant.

The main contents of the instant sales contract are as follows.

(1) Purpose (Article 1): Hexa New Zealand shall purchase the instant real estate from the Defendant and promote a collective housing construction (APT) project, and this sales contract shall be sufficiently aware that it is based on such premise and concluded with the Defendant that it will be concluded.

(2) Purchase price and payment terms and conditions (Article 2): 1,367,905,00 won (a contract deposit of KRW 136,790,50 shall be paid within 30 days after the payment of the intermediate payment, the intermediate payment of KRW 136,790,50 within 130 days after the contract is made, and the balance of KRW 1,094,324,00 shall be paid on the first day after two months have passed after the project has been approved or during three years from the contract date).

(Paragraph 3). (b)

Seocho New Zealand paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 273,581,000 in down payment and intermediate payment.

C. The Plaintiff holds a loan claim of KRW 26,688,601,654, totaling the principal and interest as of August 5, 2014 with respect to Dobong New Zealand.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2 and 3, each of 1,2 of Gap evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The sales contract of this case for the primary claim was about the land belonging to the land transaction permission zone, and was in the state of dynamic invalidation at the time of conclusion.

Meanwhile, Article 17 (1) 5 of the Housing Act is the Housing Act.