1. The defendant (Appointeds) and the appointed parties C, respectively, KRW 16,66,67, and KRW 16,66,66, and KRW 166, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 15, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Selection C, and D (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 1,425 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Jinju-si, which is a natural green area, in the purchase price of KRW 655,00,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant on the same day.

B. At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff et al. confirmed that part of the instant land was incorporated into Category 1 (M to 40M) as part of the instant land.

C. Around May 2, 2017, the determination of urban planning facilities on Froad was publicly notified. According to that, approximately 911 square meters among the instant land is incorporated into three categories (breadth 25M to 30M) as the same.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), fact-finding results of fact-finding to the director of the regional headquarters of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In order to cancel a juristic act on the ground that the motive mistake falls under an error in an important part of the contents of the juristic act, it is sufficient to indicate the motive to the other party as the content of the declaration of intention, and it is deemed that it is the content of the juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intention, and it is not necessary to reach an agreement to separately consider the motive as the content of the juristic act between the parties as the content of the declaration of intent. However, the error in the contents of the juristic act should be an important part to the extent that it would have been deemed that if the general public

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12259 delivered on May 12, 2000).

The following circumstances, i.e., the following circumstances revealed prior to the aforementioned facts, i.e., ① part of the instant land at the time of the instant sales contract, as the width of the first place.