1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the purchase price of KRW 515,000,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the purchase price of KRW 515,00,000 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) and KRW 50,000,000, the Defendant paid the down payment to the Defendant on the same day.

B. On November 10, 2017, the Plaintiff asked questions as to whether a farming house or agricultural warehouse can be located on each of the instant land in Gangnam-si, and from the Gangnam-si, the Plaintiff determined that the permission for diversion of farmland is not possible because each of the instant land is the excellent farmland and is not in conformity with the examination regulations for permission for diversion of farmland under the Enforcement Decree of the Farmland Act. However, the Plaintiff received a reply that it is possible to divert farmland if it conforms to the above examination regulations due to the mitigation of the relevant laws or changes

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. If a restriction on permission for development activities of each of the instant lands is cancelled by E, the Defendant’s agent, hearing the speech that it is possible to construct a farming house on the ground, and concluded the instant contract. This constitutes an expression of intent by mistake of motive induced by the above E, and thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant contract should be cancelled and the down payment of KRW 50,000,000 already paid should be returned as unjust enrichment.

B. As to the fact that when the limitation of permission for development activities for each land of this case is cancelled by the licensed real estate agent E, it is not sufficient to recognize it solely with the statements of No. 4-1 and 2 and the testimony of witness E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

In addition, even if a licensed real estate agent E made a statement as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is also possible to do so.