1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. The first instance court;

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, and the argument raised by the plaintiff in the trial is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition as set forth in paragraph (3) below, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the judgment of the first instance court, the 4th page 1-4 of the written judgment of the first instance court shall be cut to the following:

According to the facts of the above recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate as stated in the separate sheet No. 1, 301, 170,000 for each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, as stated in Article 2 of the sales contract of this case pursuant to Article 2 of the above purchase and sale contract of this case, where the designation of a district unit zone and the establishment of a district unit plan and permission for development activities are granted from the Plaintiff, and upon receiving payment from the Plaintiff of the remaining purchase and sale amount of KRW 6,301, 170,000 for each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2

3. On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract cannot be rescinded because the amendment of the Ordinance on the Delegation of Administrative Affairs of Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter “the instant Ordinance”) was highly probable to be reflected in the formulation of an urban management plan, as the authority to formulate district unit planning and make decisions was delegated to the Jeju Mayor. As such, the Plaintiff’s proposal to be re-established to the Jeju Mayor was not confirmed to be impossible to formulate and make decisions on the Plaintiff’s proposal. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant sales contract cannot be rescinded because there is no ground for cancellation of the agreement under Article 3(5) of the instant sales contract (hereinafter “the grounds for cancellation of authorization”).