1. The plaintiff's claim is entirely dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendants to purchase real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendants in the amount of KRW 640 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(The sales contract is written by the purchaser as the plaintiff A and one other, but it seems to be prepared for the plaintiff to pay part of the balance to others, and the actual purchaser is considered the plaintiff).

Under the above sales contract, the buyer paid the purchase price of KRW 50 million on September 15, 2014, which is the date of the contract, and KRW 100 million on September 16, 2014. The remainder of KRW 490 million was paid until December 12, 2014.

In addition, the special agreement clause 1 provides that the buyer may pay the intermediate payment before the payment date of the balance, and the seller after the payment of the intermediate payment requests the buyer to submit authorization documents to form multi-households or multi-households.

According to the special contract clause 2, the seller has secured a road necessary for the approval and permission for acquiring a house at the seller's expense, and if the authorization and permission is not permitted, the seller shall immediately return the down payment and the intermediate payment without penalty.

According to the special agreement clause 4, the cemetery located on the target land has been changed at the seller's expense.

C. The Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 150 million out of the purchase price. D.

On December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted an application for a building permit to the third party at the end of the third party. On December 2015 and January 2016, the Plaintiff demanded to supplement the following: “A part of the road along the access road is in conflict with a general industrial complex, so it is necessary to exclude it from the project site.”

However, it was not possible to supplement the above matters, and on January 26, 2016, the application for building permit was rejected by the Plaintiff.

E. The Defendants on July 8, 2016.