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

A. On December 10, 1976, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the 400 forest land in Yangju-gun, Yangju-gun, as well as the 402 forest land. On November 8, 2012, the Plaintiff was divided into the 1,272 square meters of Guri-si B forest land (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On June 5, 2012, the approval of the E business implementation plan was completed as notified by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs.

The defendant entrusted the Korea Highway Corporation with the land compensation business to be incorporated into the above project site, acquired land incorporated into the project site by consultation in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works

C. On March 11, 2014, the Korea Highway Corporation notified the Plaintiff of the compensation plan for the instant land to be incorporated into the said project section, and on June 13, 2014, the Korea Expressway Corporation requested the Plaintiff to consult on compensation for losses, which is the amount assessed based on forests and fields (169,000 won per square meter) as compensation amount, on June 13, 2014.

Accordingly, on August 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell the instant land in KRW 214,968,00 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). As to the instant land in the name of the Defendant, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of an agreement for the acquisition of public land under the name of the Defendant as the receipt No. 17099 on August 26, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the present state of the instant land was not a “forest,” it was not a “forest,” the Defendant requested an appraisal based on the present state standard of the instant land as “forest,” and presented the amount of compensation for the instant land to the Plaintiff based on the appraised value.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract at a price much lower than the market price, with the belief that the instant land was properly appraised.