1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 400,000.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased each land of KRW 184 square meters, KRW 651 square meters, and KRW 550,000,000 from the Defendant in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, for the purchase price of KRW 184 square meters, KRW 651 square meters, and KRW 11 square meters prior to E (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid each of the said lands to the Defendant KRW 50 million, the down payment of KRW 50 million on the same day, and the intermediate payment of KRW 100,000 on April 30, 2015.

B. Prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, each of the instant lands was designated as “Class 1 land of the Bato” in accordance with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Urban Planning and the Enforcement Rule of the said Ordinance, and such fact was registered in the land use planning confirmation document.

C. According to the attached Table 1 of the former Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Urban Planning (amended by Ordinance No. 5951, Jul. 30, 2015) (amended by Ordinance No. 5951 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance), “a non-to-saw” means a non-to-saw type 1 of a non-to-saw type, the absolute preservation of which is required for the entire target area, and the class 1 of the evaluation of an individual non-to-saw type 1 of a non-to-saw type means a non-to-saw type, the special protection value of which is specific.

According to the above Ordinance, the evaluation of the non-to-saw type 1 and the land of Class 1 of the individual non-to-saw evaluation shall be absolutely preserved for the whole target area.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant land for the purpose of constructing housing, etc.

The plaintiff did not notify the defendant of the fact that the land of this case was designated as Class 1 of the non-top 1 even though he expressed the above purpose of purchase.