1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. On March 29, 2016, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for KRW 325,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the purchase price of KRW 899/1904,000,000 (hereinafter “instant land”) of Pyeongtaek-si D. The Plaintiffs paid KRW 90,000 as the intermediate payment on April 28, 2016, and Plaintiff A paid KRW 60,000 as the intermediate payment on April 28, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant actually engaged in weekend experience farming in the land of this case, and that the defendant could obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland due to weekend experience farming even if he did not conduct weekend experience farming, and that the contract of this case was concluded with the defendant. Since the land of this case is used as reservoir, it is not easy to obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland, and it was known that it was punished for obtaining the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland by fraudulent means. Thus, the contract of this case was cancelled by the defendant's deception and the mistake of the plaintiffs pursuant to Articles 109 and 110 of the Civil Code, and sought payment of KRW 180,000,000 paid with the purchase price.

B. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant actually engaged in weekend experience farming in the land of this case and that the defendant was able to obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland due to weekend experience farming even if he did not conduct weekend experience farming, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Defendant explained the method of obtaining the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland as alleged by the Plaintiffs.

Even if the statement No. 5-1 of the evidence No. 5 is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant had the intention of deception in full view of the purport of the entire argument, and the statement No. 1 of the evidence is all made.