Basic Facts

The reasoning of this Court is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of non-existence of the obligation to pay KRW 6.8 million was made upon entering into the instant sales contract, and the Plaintiff explained that the sale price of the instant apartment was KRW 252 million, including options cost of KRW 10.4 million and KRW 7.6 million of the premium, such as air conditioners and reflectors. As a result, the sale price of the instant apartment was KRW 23.175 million, not the general sale price, but the sale price of the instant apartment, and the option cost was KRW 3.6 million.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s deception or the Plaintiff’s mistake as to the part of KRW 6.8 million (=10.4 million - 3.6 million), which is the difference between option costs, among the instant sales contract, is revoked. Therefore, there is no longer no obligation of the Plaintiff for payment based on the instant sales contract.

(2) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2, 9, and 17 of the judgment, although the real estate agent F explained the apartment of this case, it is found that the Plaintiff knew that the agreement of this case was missing from the option of this case, which was entered into the sale contract of this case, with the following circumstances, i.e., whether the apartment of this case is a partner's supply or a general supply portion, and the sale price portion is an important factor in the determination. ② Since the special agreement of this case was deleted and the options contract of this case was attached, the Plaintiff appears to have been missing from the option of this case. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20370, Mar. 3, 2008>