1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for this part of the presumed factual basis is as follows: (a) the court added “the ownership of Hanjin-in Co., Ltd.” to “a factory building on the ground” in the 2nd page 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the 17-18th page is as follows.

It shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(D) On May 8, 2014, Jyang-si Mayor revoked permission for occupation and use of the river in accordance with Articles 70 and 69 of the River Act, by notifying the Plaintiff that each of the instant river sites became invalid due to the expiration of the permission for occupation and use of the river in accordance with the plan to create a playground for the sound use of leisure time and the activation of sports for all.

2. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the defendant should return to the plaintiff KRW 380 million paid with the transfer proceeds of the right to occupy and use of this case for the following reasons.

① The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for the transfer and acquisition of the instant right to occupation and use on the condition that the instant permit is to be renewed for a considerable period of time, but the said contract became null and void due to the failure

② The Plaintiff concluded a contract on the transfer or acquisition of the right to occupy and use the instant case with the belief that the permission to occupy and use the instant plant would be renewed for a considerable period of time, and the Defendant was also aware of such motive with the Defendant.

If the Plaintiff knew that the permission for occupation and use of this case would be revoked in 3 years and 4 months, the Plaintiff did not conclude the contract for the transfer or acquisition of the right to occupation and use of this case. This constitutes an error as to the important part of the contents of the legal act, and thus, the contract for the transfer or acquisition of the right to occupy and use of this case is revoked through the service of a copy of

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s conditional contract is a conditional contract, even if all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to the trial.