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

A. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant the pertinent real estate amounting to KRW 3330 million by setting the purchase price of KRW 366,69 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

The Defendant received full payment from the Plaintiff until May 15, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate on the same day.

B. In the course of a survey to divide the instant real estate around October 2014, the Plaintiff revealed that the area entered in the public register of the instant real estate was insufficient to have 3,669 square meters or actual area of 3,068 square meters and 601 square meters. Accordingly, on October 27, 2014 and October 29, 2014, the area of the forestry register and the certified copy of the registry of the instant real estate changed to 3,068 square meters.

On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff was notified of the correction of registered matters that the area of 3,669 square meters on the public register of the instant real estate was reduced to the same area as the actual area and 3,068 square meters.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant real estate was necessary to secure the access road to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) and the site for the establishment of an additional factory. It is deemed that the instant real estate was sufficient to secure access road and site to a level of 1,110 square meters, and that the purchase price of the instant real estate was determined as KRW 330,300,000,000 calculated by multiplying the size of the sales price of the instant real estate by KRW 3669,00,000,000 per square meter, and thus the instant sales contract constitutes “the sale that designated a volume.

In addition, regardless of whether the sales contract of this case constitutes a “sale designated by quantity” as part of the subject matter is already extinguished at the time of the contract, the claim for price reduction can be made pursuant to Article 574 of the Civil Act.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff was aware of the shortage of real estate volume.