1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff as added by this court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the co-owner (1/2 shares) of D forest land of 3,394 square meters (hereinafter “D forest land”) in Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “Fdong”) and the Defendant is the owner of C forest land of 992 square meters adjacent to the south of the said forest land (hereinafter “instant land”).

(A) On May 202, the Plaintiff sought to purchase the instant land from the Defendant in order to establish access roads to the instant land to the instant land when implementing the housing site development project, etc. in D forest with obtaining permission for a long-term construction permit or permission for development of a zone in D forest. Since the instant land was designated as an amusement park site, there were circumstances, such as designating the instant land as an amusement park site, the Plaintiff intended to establish the access roads to the said land on a 130 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “Adjoining land”) out of E forest land of approximately 11,566 square meters (around 3,500 square meters) located in neighboring

B. On November 10, 2002, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to divide the adjoining land into the above E Forest No. 11,566 square meters, and allow the Plaintiff to use it as the road, and the divided land shall be donated to Incheon Metropolitan City, and the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 260 million to the Defendant (Evidence No. 4).

On November 10, 2002, the defendant delivered to the plaintiff a letter of consent to the use of the road (Evidence B No. 4) with respect to the above adjoining land, and the plaintiff completed the payment of KRW 260 million around that time.

C. After that, the Plaintiff concluded a right modification contract with the Defendant in March 2008 because it is difficult for the Plaintiff to construct a road by dividing the above adjoining land into a road. The purport of the contract is that the Plaintiff uses the land of this case as a road instead of giving up the right to the adjoining land.

In March 2008, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a letter of consent to the use of the road (Evidence 8) with respect to the instant land.

On August 13, 2009, the Plaintiff terminated the above contract with the Defendant on November 10, 2002. Thus, the Defendant’s restoration to its original state of KRW 260 million.