1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around August 197, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a building permit to construct a tourist hotel on a parcel of land 101-3, 102-5, 1103, 197.

B. Upon filing an application for the above building permit, the Plaintiff filed an application for an urban planning project with the purport of opening an urban planning road of a size of 6.0m and 24.5m in length (26.5m in Ghana). The Defendant applied for the above building permit by the Plaintiff.

C. Each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was owned by the Plaintiff, among the lands divided in accordance with the above construction site, 102-5 and 110, which are the building site. However, the registration of transfer of ownership in the Defendant’s name was completed on July 30, 1999, as Changwon District Court Receipt Office No. 21469, which was donated to the Defendant on July 29, 199, pursuant to the aforementioned urban planning project.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s application for permission to construct a hotel, the Defendant attached an additional note of donation of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant as to the Plaintiff’s application for permission to construct a hotel.

Although the Defendant’s building permit against the Plaintiff is a binding act or a binding discretionary act, the Defendant attached additional clauses such as donation, and thus, the above additional clauses are null and void. Accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant for each real estate of this case is also null and void.

Therefore, the defendant should cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in his name.

Even if a father-general with respect to the acceptance of donations is not null and void as a matter of course, the plaintiff's acceptance of donations may be revoked by mistake. The plaintiff revoked the acceptance of donations on each of the real estate of this case through the complaint of this case. Therefore, the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant is registered.