1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in the real estate development and sale business, consulting business, and real estate lease and management business. The Defendants are owners who own 1/2 shares of D large 1769 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The F is a brokerage assistant of the G Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Office.

B. On December 17, 1987, the competent early market decided on urban planning facilities (parking lots) with respect to the instant land, and accordingly, the instant land should have the ratio of the portion used as a parking lot to 70% or more, and its use is limited.

C. On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendants: “The Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the Defendants; KRW 320,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the Defendants; the Plaintiff paid to the Defendants at the time of the contract; KRW 400,000,000 pertaining to the instant land succeeded to the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff paid the remainder 2,480,000,000 to the Defendants on September 28, 2017; the Defendants, upon receiving the remainder of the purchase price from the Plaintiff and at the same time, concluded a sales contract to deliver documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership of the instant land (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”); and the document prepared regarding the instant sales contract, “the instant sales contract”).

On April 17, 2017, as of the date of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff remitted each of the Defendants KRW 160,000,000 as the down payment.

E. On September 26, 2017, the Plaintiff’s legal representative, HH, Attorneys I concluded the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff despite having known that Defendant C was unable to develop the instant land.

This is because the above defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the important fact related to the conclusion of the contract, the plaintiff could not achieve the purpose of the contract of this case, and the contract of this case did not pay the balance.