(b) A person who knowingly purchased a specific site at the time of sale and purchase may not unilaterally rescind the sale and purchase on the ground that the sale and purchase is less than the average number of plane mistakenly indicated in the contract due to salvation.

(b) A person who knowingly purchased a specific site at the time of sale and purchase with the knowledge of such phenomenon may not unilaterally rescind the sale and purchase on the ground that the sale and purchase is less than the average value indicated in the contract by mistake.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Article 14 of the evidence No. 1, which is a sales contract of the land at the time of the original market, clearly stating that the liability of each party at the time of the termination of this contract is "the responsibility of each party at the time of the termination of this contract," and therefore, it is apparent that the original judgment clearly agreed on the seller's contract deposit, compensation for total sum of the contract deposit, loss of the buyer's contract deposit and cancellation of the contract to the other party. As such, the presumption that the above provision was scheduled to be compensation for damages caused by the breach of the contract (no evidence exists to reverse such presumption in the record), and that it was legitimate that the defendant rejected the offset based on the right to claim damages against the plaintiff due to the violation of the contract against the plaintiff as stated in the judgment

The following grounds of incidental appeal are examined by the Plaintiff’s agent.

1. According to the original judgment, the court below found that the land owned by the defendant, which is the object of the purchase and sale of this case, is adjacent to the plaintiff's house, and the area was expressed at 85 square meters on the contract, but the actual area was not equal to 75 square meters, and that the plaintiff also purchased it with the knowledge of the phenomenon of the site at the time of the sale and purchase. However, the contract acknowledged that the contract was erroneous as above due to the defendant's attachment to the land level was 85 square meters, and that the plaintiff purchased the land at the above time of the sale and it was believed that the actual average area of the destination was 85 square meters, and that the plaintiff purchased the land for the construction of the store and the house for the operation of the factory on that ground, and that the land level was 75 square meters other than the actual area of the site, and it was clearly rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the sales was unilaterally cancelled since it could not reach the original purpose of purchase, and that there was no violation of the rules of evidence in comparison with the contents of evidence established by the record.

2. As long as the original judgment presumed that Article 14 of the No. 14 of the evidence No. 1 was the determination of damages, the court below recognized that the plaintiff's liability for damages due to the cancellation by the reasons mentioned in the reasoning of the sale in this case was to be limited to the loss of the down payment, and that the plaintiff did not take any consideration as to the damages as alleged by the plaintiff during the contract execution preparation, it cannot be said that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the theory of lawsuit concerning this point.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-dong B-Jed Han-gu