1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The fact-finding and decision of the first instance court are justified even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court for the acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is based on the evidence submitted to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for this Court regarding this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition or modification as follows, with the exception of the addition or modification as to “2. added or corrected.” As such, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

(No separate document shall be attached to the judgment of the court of first instance which cited the attachment of the judgment). 2. Additional or amended parts 3. 14 to 4. 3.

① The instant exchange contract is a transaction to secure access roads to the said E land, and it is impossible to open access roads to the inside of the said E land. As such, the instant exchange contract is null and void as it is impossible to achieve its purpose.

② The Plaintiff, by Defendant D, was involved in an error in relation to the appropriate price relationship for each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

In addition, through the instant exchange contract, the Plaintiff entered into the instant exchange contract because the said E land was out of the franchise area and furthermore, it was possible to develop the said E land through the opening of the access road to the inside of the said land. However, even if the said E land was not the instant exchange contract, it was possible to escape from the franchise area. Notwithstanding the instant exchange contract, it is impossible to establish the access road to the inside of the said E land, and it is not possible to develop the said E land.

The plaintiff's above mistake was indicated as an important content of the exchange contract of this case or caused by the defendants, and the plaintiff's contract of this case is revoked on the ground of the above mistake.

③ Defendant D did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the said E land was in a family relationship with Defendant B, only if the Plaintiff entered into the instant exchange contract.