1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for KRW 700 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 630 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 630 million on the date of the contract. On February 21, 2014, the Plaintiff paid only KRW 30 million out of the down payment to the Defendant on the date of the contract.

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

Article 5 The seller shall deliver all documents necessary for the ownership (registration) to the buyer when he/she receives the balance, and shall cooperate with the transfer registration.

Article 6. The seller's breach of contract pays a double amount of the down payment, and the buyer gives up the down payment and does not claim the return of the down payment.

The Defendant notified the Defendant that the instant sales contract was rescinded on March 7, 2014, March 19, 2014, and November 26, 2014 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s remainder was unpaid.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 5 evidence, Eul 1, 2 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. At the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff agreed to provide the Plaintiff with a written consent to land use necessary for the remainder loans.

Even if there was no such agreement, the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland is necessary to complete the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate, which is farmland, and since it is necessary for the seller to obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland, the consent of the Defendant’s land use is required, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the consent of land

However, the defendant failed to perform his duty to deliver a written consent to land use according to the contract of this case, and thereby the plaintiff is the defendant.