The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court did not accept the instant claim seeking revocation of the instant sales contract and compensation for value on the ground of fraudulent act, since it is insufficient to recognize that there was a small property such as purchase obligation, etc., as alleged by the Plaintiff in A, which was in excess of the obligation at the time of the instant sales contract.

Examining the record, the above determination by the court below is justifiable.

There is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or misapprehending the legal principles on excess of obligations or the Supreme Court precedents.

The Supreme Court precedents in the grounds of appeal are different from the case so that it is inappropriate to invoke the case in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.