1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 17, 2008, Hansung Free Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Free Trade Co., Ltd.”) filed an application with the Defendant for approval of a business plan under the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act (hereinafter “instant factory”) to construct a factory (hereinafter “instant factory site”) on the ground of the land, Busan City B, etc. (hereinafter “instant factory site”). On this issue, the Defendant made an application for approval of a business plan on December 31, 2008 (hereinafter “instant approval of a business plan”). The Defendant was deemed to have obtained a building permit for the instant factory.

(A) Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 7). (b)

On the other hand, on December 24, 2008, the plaintiff donated the land of this case falling under the access road to the above factory to the defendant on the ground that "a large number of traffic roads (entry roads) will later prevent the dispute over ownership," and completed each registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case under the name of the defendant on December 26, 2008.

(A) Evidence Nos. 11 through 9, No. 1 through 3). (c)

Since Hansung Free Trade failed to start the instant factory, the Plaintiff filed a civil petition with the Defendant around May 2012, stating that “The approval of the instant business plan is revoked,” and the Defendant revoked the approval of the instant business plan on August 14, 2012.

(B) [Evidence 8] / [Grounds for Recognition] ; Gap evidence 2, 5, 11 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply); Eul evidence 1 through 3, 7, 8; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that "the land of this case was donated to the defendant on the condition that construction permission and completion of the factory of this case was completed, and the above donation was a juristic act subject to rescission on the condition that the construction permission of the factory of this case would not be maintained. Since the defendant revoked the construction permission, the defendant is obligated to return the land of this case to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is selected to purchase the land of this case and construction cost for road packing.