1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is that the court of first instance as to this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment, except where the court of first instance excludes the entries in the evidence 1 and 2-1 and 2-2 of the evidence 7 and the testimony of the party witness F and H, which fall short of the first instance judgment after the conclusion of the judgment, although the court of first instance added the following judgments, and additionally submitted at the court of first instance,

2. Additional determination

A. Even if an additional determination on the assertion on the cancellation of a sales contract on the ground of mistake was made by setting forth to the Defendant the motive that the Plaintiff would not conclude the instant sales contract if the construction of a new factory is impossible, the argument on the cancellation of a sales contract on the grounds of mistake cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

① Comprehensively taking account of the statement No. 5 and the fact finding about the head of the first instance court’s fleet and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff received a reply from the head of the Haan-Gun to the effect that, on February 13, 2015, it was rejected on the ground that “whether it is possible to newly build a factory on each land of this case with permission for development acts” pursuant to Article 19(1) of the former Civil Petitions Treatment Act (wholly amended by Act No. 13459, Aug. 11, 2015; hereinafter “Civil Petitions Treatment Act”), and that, upon deliberation by the Haan-Gun Planning Committee, it was rejected on the ground that “the entry road is too adjacent to the intersection, and the factory site is environmentally adjacent to the village, thereby impairing the residents’ lives, etc.”

② However, in light of the witness G of the first instance court, the testimony of the witness H of the first instance court, the fact-finding results on the head of the Gun of the first instance court, and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to file a prior examination request, and the Plaintiff’s application for permission for development activities is filed by the neighboring residents. Article 58 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act.